0120093749
03-17-2011
Rena L. Dortch, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Rena L. Dortch,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120093749
Hearing No. 550-2009-00150X
Agency No. 4F-945-0244-08
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination. For the reasons set forth,
we AFFIRM the Agency's decision, finding no discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that, during the relevant time, Complainant was
employed as a Supervisor of Customer Services at the Agency's East Santa
Cruz Station in Santa Cruz, California. Report of Investigation (ROI),
at 1. Believing that she was a victim of discrimination, Complainant
sought counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint.
Complainant alleges that she was subjected to discrimination on the
bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), and age (over 40) when:
1. On August 20, 2008, Complainant became aware that she was denied the
opportunity to be on the Bay Valley Route Examiner Team.
2. On October 11, 2008, Complainant was forced to work (which contradicted
the previously posted schedule), and she was required to work 12 1/2
hours to complete an audit.1
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant received a copy
of the investigative report. The Agency informed Complainant of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ), or alternatively, to receive a final decision from the Agency.
Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ.
On July 28, 2009, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision
without a hearing finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact
in dispute, and concluded that Complainant had not been discriminated
against as alleged. Specifically, the AJ found the Agency presented
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Complainant
failed to rebut.
On August 6, 2009, the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's
decision. Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant appeal.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant argued, in essence, that she disagreed with the
Agency's denial of her claims. Complainant's Appeal, at 1.
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. 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.
Upon review, we find that the issuance of summary judgment was appropriate
as there are no genuine issues of material fact. Regarding claim 1,
the Acting Postmaster (AP) stated that the Bay Valley Route Examiner
Team was a group that was originally being assembled to conduct route
examinations between September 2008 and May 2009. The AP claimed that
Complainant was originally named to be on the Bay Valley Route Examiner
Team by the Manager of Post Office Operations (Manager). The AP said
that the Manager drew names from various offices in assembling the team.
The AP asserted that Complainant's name was withdrawn from consideration
because her training in Route Evaluations was not current, and they were
currently understaffed in Management at the Santa Cruz Installation.
The AP articulated that, shortly after the withdrawal of Complainant from
consideration, the team was disbanded because of agreements made at the
National level pertaining to an alternative means of evaluating routes.
The AP stated that there was no Team and the Team was dissolved before
it ever got off the ground. The AP said that, therefore, the question
was moot as far as why Complainant was no longer being considered for
the Team. ROI, at Affidavit B.
With respect to claim 2, the Manager stated that Complainant was the
Supervisor in charge of Finance at the Eastside Station. The Manager
said that he never forced Complainant to work 12 1/2 hours to complete
an audit. The Manager asserted that there were no audits that required
anyone to work 12 1/2 hours in a given day. The Manager claimed that
this was a decision Complainant made on her own. The Manager argued
that he remembered reminding Complainant that she needed to conduct an
audit by Saturday because it had to be done before she went on vacation,
and Complainant was scheduled for vacation starting on Monday, October
13, 2008. ROI, at Affidavit C.
The Manager articulated that, to the best of his knowledge, Complainant
considered coming to work on a non-scheduled day or holiday in order to
complete an audit. The Manager stated that this would have been against
the Postmaster's Policy. The Manager claimed that Supervisors were not
permitted to perform work on overtime or other premium pay when the work
involved was part of their regular duties and should be performed during
the course of a regular workday. The Manager said that audits were
considered part of the regular work day for the Finance Supervisor,
so Complainant may have been reminded that she was not authorized
to perform an audit on Sunday, October 12 or Monday, October 13, the
Columbus Day Holiday. ROI, at Affidavit C.
The Commission finds that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency's
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Additionally, the Commission finds that Complainant has failed to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to discrimination
on the bases of race, sex or age.
CONCLUSION
The Agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
March 17, 2011
__________________
Date
1 Complainant's complaint also included five additional issues dated from
approximately July 4, 2008 to October 4, 2008. On October 30, 2008, the
Agency issued a decision dismissing the five additional issues. There is
no indication in the record that Complainant challenged the dismissal of
these additional issues with the AJ or raised the matter in the instant
appeal. Therefore, we will not address these issues in this decision.
??
??
??
??
2
0120093749
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120093749