0120070623
06-05-2009
Richard Crook, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Richard Crook,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070623
Hearing No. 460200600050X
Agency No. 4G770034105
DECISION
On November 16, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
October 18, 2006 final order concerning his 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a City Carrier at the agency's Park Place Station in Houston, Texas.
On November 29, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that he was discriminated against on the bases of his sex (male), race
(Caucasian), color (white), disability (depression and anxiety), and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) on September 29,
2005, management yelled at him and instructed him to clock out; and
(2) on November 15, 2005, management issued him a 7-day suspension for
improper conduct/absence without leave (AWOL).1
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ found that, after viewing the evidence in
a light most favorable to complainant, a decision without a hearing was
appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on September 28, 2006, finding
no discrimination. The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that he was subjected
to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, complainant reiterates his
contention that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD
issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the
agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may
properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11,
2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11,
2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision
without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this,
complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned
by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating
that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Here, we concur with the AJ's finding that assuming, arguendo, complainant
established a prima facie case of sex, race, color, disability, and
reprisal discrimination, the agency nonetheless articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions that complainant failed to show
were pretextual. Specifically, the record reflects that on September 29,
2005, complainant became involved in an altercation with management in
which he raised his voice and made several aggressive gestures before
leaving the facility, and that complainant's actions were witnessed by
management officials and co-workers. (Report of Investigation, Affidavit
B; C; Exhibit 3; 5; 6; 7; 9; 10). The record also shows that on October
5, 2005, during a pre-disciplinary interview, complainant again became
hostile with management officials. (R.O.I., Exhibit 3). The record
shows that, as a result of complainant's actions, on November 15,
2005, management issued complainant a notice of 7-day suspension for
improper conduct/AWOL. (R.O.I., Exhibit 2). We concur with the AJ's
finding that complainant proffered no evidence from which a reasonable
fact-finder could conclude that the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex, race, color, disability,
or prior EEO activity.
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to
complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further
find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb
the AJ's decision and the agency's final order is affirmed.
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
June 5, 2009
Date
1 In his formal complaint, complainant also alleged that the agency
discriminated against him (3) when, on unspecified dates he was verbally
attacked by co-workers; he was instructed to bring documentation to show
that he was totally incapacitated; he was prevented from using his cell
phone for official business; he was given a pre-disciplinary interview for
a safety violation; and a co-worker stated that she did not have access
to TACS. By Notice dated December 14, 2005, the agency dismissed claim
3 pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim.
Complainant does not raise this issue on appeal; we therefore deem the
appeal of this claim waived.
??
??
??
??
2
0120070623
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120070623
6
0120070623