Judith Brining, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 30, 2000
01a00472 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 30, 2000)

01a00472

03-30-2000

Judith Brining, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Judith Brining, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01A00472

v. ) Agency No. HO-0145-97

) Hearing No. 270-99-9059X

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of sex (Female) and

reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeal

is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether complainant has established,

by preponderant evidence, that the agency discriminated against her on

the bases of sex and reprisal<2> when the District Manager (Manager)

became involved in her personal business in the workplace.

BACKGROUND

The record reveals that complainant is an employee at an agency facility

in New Orleans, Louisiana. Complainant alleges that on May 16, 1997,

the Manager called her into his office and delivered some papers to her.

The papers were given to the Manager by complainant's ex-husband who is a

friend of the Manager. Complainant alleges that she felt intimidated by

the Manager's action and his friendship with her ex-husband. Believing

she was a victim of discrimination, complainant contacted the EEO office

and filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on August 18, 1997,

alleging that the agency had discriminated against her on the bases of

sex and reprisal.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing

before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ found that there were

no issues of material fact to be decided in this case and, therefore,

issued her recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on

the written record.

In her Findings and Conclusions, the AJ determined that complainant failed

to establish a prima facie case of sex and reprisal discrimination because

she failed to demonstrate that there was any causal connection between

the alleged harassment and complainant's protected bases. In particular,

the AJ noted that complainant's claim was an objection to the Manager's

intrusion into her personal affairs, however, complainant failed to

provide any evidence that the intrusion was was connected to her sex

or in reprisal for her prior EEO activity. Accordingly, upon review of

the record in a light most favorable to complainant, the AJ found that

complainant failed to establish that the Manager discriminated against

her based on sex or in reprisal.

The agency's FAD implemented the AJ's recommended Findings and

Conclusions. The appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure

set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United

States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate

where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive

law, no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if the

evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the

non-moving party. Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st

Cir. 1988). In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title

VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation,

complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or

her case. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173

(3d Cir. 1988). In determining whether to grant summary judgment,

the trier of fact's function is not to weigh the evidence and render a

determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether

there exists a genuine factual dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.

After a careful review of the record, we find the AJ properly determined

that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case.

Specifically, we find that complainant failed to set forth sufficient

facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. Moreover,

complainant failed to provide in this appeal any evidence or argument

that material issues are in dispute. Therefore, we concur in the AJ's

determination and find that summary judgment was appropriate in this

case.

Based on our careful de novo review of the entire record before us,

the Commission finds that the AJ's recommended findings and conclusions

properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate

regulations, policies, and laws. We conclude that complainant failed to

establish by preponderant evidence that any of the agency's actions were

in retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity or were motivated by

discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex. Accordingly, we discern

no basis to disturb the AJ's recommended findings and conclusions or

the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the agency's

FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). All requests and arguments must be

submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)

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 (Z1199)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:

March 30, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's

federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations

apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in

the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where

applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,

may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.

2 The record indicates that complainant failed a prior EEO complaint

against the Manager in July 1996, Case No. 4G-700-1180-96.