Sylvia E. Ragland-Carter, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 22, 2005
01a51569 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 22, 2005)

01a51569

03-22-2005

Sylvia E. Ragland-Carter, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Sylvia E. Ragland-Carter v. United States Postal Service

01A51569

March 22, 2005

.

Sylvia E. Ragland-Carter,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A51569

Agency No. 1C-191-0045-02

Hearing No. 170-A3-8377X

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination. Complainant alleges

discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female),

and in retaliation when:

On February 13, 2002 through the present, complainant was denied

continued use of personal time.

During February 9 through 22, 2002, a pay adjustment was made taking

sick leave for personal time previously requested.

On February 19, 2002, complainant was notified that her detail assignment

was concluding, effective February 25, 2002.

On February 5, 2002, complainant received an untimely Merit evaluation

and management failed to give her a Far Exceeds.

On September 21, 2004, 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. Specifically, the AJ found the agency presented legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which complainant failed

to rebut. On October 19, 2004, the agency issued a decision finding

no discrimination. The agency fully 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, 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.

We find that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

for its actions. Regarding the denial of continued use of personal time

and pay adjustment, the Senior Plant Manager stated that complainant

was denied personal time because it was not in good business practice to

allow its continual use. The Senior Plant Manager pointed to regulations

that show that the reduced work schedules were to be established under

the Family and Medical Leave Act. Agency officials further stated that

the personal time had to be converted to sick leave under the Family

and Medical Leave Act.

Corresponding to the detail, the Senior Plant Manager asserted that he

notified complainant that her detail assignment was being rescinded when

her developmental assignment was complete. The Senior Plant Manager

stated that complainant's detail assignment was effective November 11,

2000, and there was no specific end date at the time complainant started.

With respect to the untimely performance appraisal, the Senior Manager of

Distribution Operations reported that complainant's merit evaluation was

untimely because complainant was not available. The Senior Manager of

Distribution Operations commented that complainant was properly appraised

during the period at issue in this case.

Complainant failed to show that the agency's reasons are pretext for

discrimination. Moreover, complainant failed to show, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that she was discriminated against on the bases of race,

sex, or retaliation.

The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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

March 22, 2005

__________________

Date