01a03370
08-02-2000
Leslie A. McCauley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/West Region), Agency.
Leslie A. McCauley v. United States Postal Service
01A03370
August 2, 2000
.
Leslie A. McCauley,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific/West Region),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03370
Agency No. 4E-800-1099-96
Hearing No. 320-97-8394X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency action
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 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). Complainant alleges he was discriminated
against on the bases of sex (male) and age (DOB: October 7, 1949)
when the Station Manager allowed a younger, female candidate for Union
President the opportunity to give a stand up to employees at the Ivywild
Station while the Station Manager denied him the same opportunity.
Complainant was given an opportunity to give a stand up, however he
alleges that he was informed by a Department of Labor investigator that
he would be arrested for speaking. Finally, complainant believes that
the Station Manager's denial of the same opportunity to give a stand
up resulted in his loss of the election. For the following reasons,
we AFFIRM the agency's final action.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, Complainant was
employed as a Letter Carrier at the agency's facility in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. Believing he was a victim of discrimination,
complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal
complaint on January 20, 1996. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant was provided a copy of the investigative file and requested
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ notified
both parties that it appeared that the complaint contained no issues of
material fact. Neither party objected to a decision without a hearing.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of sex and age discrimination, noting that complainant's allegation did
not create an inference of discrimination. In particular, the AJ found
that although complainant believed that the Station Manager's action
cost him the election, complainant failed to present evidence that the
stand up given by the female employee had any affect on the election.
Finally, the AJ found that complainant failed to provide competent
evidence regarding his assertion that he would have been arrested if he
accepted the agency's offer to speak at a stand up.
The AJ then concluded that the agency proffered legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, namely that it offered
complainant the same opportunity but he declined. The AJ then concluded
that complainant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that he was discriminated against under any of his alleged bases.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant contends, among other things, that the AJ and
the agency failed to provide complainant with the remedy granted to him
in McCauley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01963359
(November 22, 1996). The agency stands on the record and requests that
we affirm its final action implementing the AJ's decision.
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. Moreover,
complainant does not dispute the AJ's determination that there is
no genuine issue of material fact. 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 the agency's action was
motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex or age.
As to complainant's contention on appeal that the agency and AJ failed
to implement the Commission's previous decision, we find no merit to
his assertion.<2> Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
recommended findings and conclusions or the agency's adoption of the
AJ's decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 2, 2000
__________________
Date
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:
__________________
Date
______________________________
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.
2The Commission notes that the previous decision cited by complainant
reversed the agency's dismissal of his complaint and remanded the
complaint for investigation in conjunction with the decision and
applicable regulations. The previous decision made no determination of
the merits of complainant's complaint and did not award complainant any
remedy.