James E. Lamb, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 29, 2009
0120070957 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 29, 2009)

0120070957

01-29-2009

James E. Lamb, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (New York Area), Agency.


James E. Lamb,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(New York Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120070957

Hearing No. 160-2005-00232X

Agency No. 4A-105-0004-04

DECISION

On December 9, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's

November 7, 2006 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity

(EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the

Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a city carrier at the Poughkeepsie, New York Post Office.

The record reveals that on August 7, 2003, complainant was involved

in a collision with a woman on a bicycle while complainant was driving

an agency vehicle. On September 5, 2003, the Supervisor of Customer

Service and the Postmaster issued complainant a Notice of Removal for

failure to work in a safe manner/preventable at fault accident.

On August 21, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he

was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal for prior protected

EEO activity when on September 5, 2003, the agency issued complainant

a Notice of Removal.1

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely

requested a hearing. The agency filed a motion for a decision without

a hearing, which the AJ granted in a decision dated October 10, 2006.

In that decision, the AJ found no discrimination because she determined

that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal or

provide evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions were pretext

for reprisal. The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting

the AJ's findings. Complainant did not submit a statement on appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ's legal and

factual conclusions, and the agency's final order adopting them, de novo.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a) (stating that a "decision on an appeal from

an agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review . . ."); see

also EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999)

(providing that an administrative judge's "decision to issue a decision

without a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)] will be reviewed

de novo"). This essentially means that we should look at this case

with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate)

or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's, factual conclusions and

legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional

discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal

employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9,

� VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that

the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and

legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC

"review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including

any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its

decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its

interpretation of the law").

The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a

hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material

fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the

summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment

is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive

legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists

no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,

a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine

whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of

the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and

all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.

Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that

a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital

Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"

if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case.

If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing

a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context

of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a

decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the

record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).

Assuming arguendo that complainant established a prima facie case of

reprisal, we nonetheless find that the agency provided legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, agency

management stated that complainant was issued a Notice of Removal

because complainant was involved in a preventable collision with a

cyclist that was partly complainant's fault. Complainant contends that

the agency's explanation is pretextual because three co-workers who

were also in accidents were not issued a Notice of Removal. However,

the record reveals that, unlike complainant, none of the comparative

employees struck a pedestrian or cyclist while on duty. We further

note that two of the comparative employees were suspended for their

roles in accidents, but complainant's removal notice ultimately was

rescinded and expunged from his personnel file. Consequently, we find

that complainant failed to provide any evidence from which a reasonable

fact-finder could conclude that the agency's articulated reasons were

pretext for reprisal. Thus, we find that the AJ properly issued a

decision without a hearing.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record, we affirm the agency's final

order implementing the AJ's finding of no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the

policies, practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request

to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail

within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0408)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you

receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the

defendant in the complaint the person who is the official agency head

or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and

official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your

case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization,

and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other

security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within

the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with

the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.

Both the request and the civil

action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph

above ("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ _January 29,

2009_______________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director Date

Office of Federal Operations

1 The record reflects that the Notice of Removal was subsequently

rescinded.

??

??

??

??

2

0120070957

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120070957