0120091519
08-06-2009
Quinzea L. Chilton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Quinzea L. Chilton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120091519
Agency No. 4C-430-0050-08
Hearing No. 532-2008-00206X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's appeal from the agency's January 22, 2009 final action concerning her 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.
Complainant, a Mail Handler at the agency's Springfield, Ohio Post Office, claimed that the agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (African-American) when:
as of February 17, 2008, her request for reassignment to Columbus, Ohio had not been granted.
The record reflects that in April 2007, complainant moved to Columbus, Ohio and commutes 126 miles (round trip) to Springfield, Ohio. The record further reflects that in February 2007, complainant began applying for reassignment to the Columbus District through the agency's automated eReassignment system. However. as of February 2008, she has yet to be granted reassignment and has not been given a reason why her request has been denied. Complainant requested reassignments on the following dates: February 28, 2007, March 12, 2007, April 29, 2007 and November 15, 2007. On March 14, 2007, complainant's name appeared as number 23 on the list, and on May 2, 2007, her name appeared as number 8 on the list. On December 27, 2007, complainant's name appeared as number 9 on the list, and on April 16, 2008, her name appeared as number 3 on the list. The record reflects that in June 2007, complainant was denied reassignment to two letter carrier positions based on her unacceptable safety record.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
In her decision, the AJ determined that based on the record evidence, complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on race because she did not identify a similar situated individual who was treated more favorably under similar circumstances. The AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which complainant failed to show were a pretext for discrimination.
The AJ noted that the Human Resources Generalist Principal (H1) indicated that complainant has yet to be reassigned to the Columbus District because her eReassignment request has not been reached on the current list. Specifically, H1 stated "the process for eReassignment is to consider employees based on the request date in the system. [Complainant's] request has not been reached yet, as they are employees on the system with earlier request dates." The AJ noted that pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the agency and the union, requests for reassignments "will be considered in the order received consistent with the vacancies being filled and types of positions requested."
Further, the AJ noted that a review of the record indicates that complainant is currently fourth on the eReassignment list for consideration for a Mail Handler position. The AJ noted that the record reflects that two African-American employees and one Caucasian employee were reassigned in January-March 2008. The AJ noted that twenty Mail Handlers were hired from a hiring register the first pay period of fiscal year 2008; and since 2007, eight employees from within the bid cluster were reassigned to the Mail Handler craft pursuant to collective bargaining agreement provisions.
With respect to complainant's argument that she did not receive a response after submitting her reassignment request, the AJ noted that employees who submit requests through the eReassignment system do not receive notification from the agency. The AJ noted, however, when an employee is selected, the system generates a letter.
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, summary judgment is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Complainant has offered no persuasive arguments on appeal regarding the AJ's decision to issue a decision without a hearing, or regarding the AJ's findings on the merits. Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final action, because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 6, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120091519
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120091519
5
0120091519