01A42082
07-09-2004
Randy E. Vallejos, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area) Agency.
Randy E. Vallejos v. United States Postal Service
01A42082
July 9, 2004
.
Randy E. Vallejos,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Western Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42082
Agency No. 4E-840-0033-02
Hearing No. 350-A3-8122X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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 accepted for the Commission's review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
The record reveals that complainant, a Business Reply Technician with
the agency's Ogden, Utah facility, filed a formal EEO complaint on April
17, 2002, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him on the
bases of national origin (Hispanic) and sex (male) when he was denied a
promotion to Supervisor, Customer Services, EAS-16. 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.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination based on sex and national origin. The AJ also found
that the agency offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions that were not rebutted by complainant as a pretext for unlawful
discrimination. The AJ found that complainant has not shown that a genuine
dispute of material fact or genuine credibility issue exists concerning
the lawfulness of the agency's articulated reasons for the non-selection.
The agency's final order implemented 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. 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, a decision without
a hearing is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a decision without 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).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses on
whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when, as here, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether s/he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aiken, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
In the instant case, the agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. We note that there were two
vacancies for the position at issue. With regard to the first selection,
the agency indicated that complainant was not selected because he failed
to demonstrate an adequate skill level or experience on his application
or during his interview. His numerical score was substantially lower than
the two highest scoring candidates. The agency explained that complainant
had very little experience in supervising the delivery service areas.
In regard to the second selection, which was re-posted after the first
selection was made, the agency responded that complainant was not selected
because he did not reapply for the position. Complainant did not rebut
these explanations.
A decision without a hearing is proper if a party fails to establish
any essential element of his case on which he bears the burden of proof.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Upon review, we find
that complainant failed to provide any evidence from which a reasonable
fact finder could conclude that the agency's articulated reasons for
the non-selection were pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, the Commission finds
that the issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate, as no
genuine dispute of material fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision
properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. Further, construing the evidence to
be most favorable to complainant, we conclude that complainant failed
to present evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's protected classes.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_July 9, 2004_________________
Date