Thuky T. Truong, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 25, 2000
01A33223 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 25, 2000)

01A33223

03-25-2000

Thuky T. Truong, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.


Thuky T. Truong v. United States Postal Service

01A33223

March 25, 20004

.

Thuky T. Truong,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Northeast Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A33223

Agency No. 1B-021-0047-01

Hearing No. 160-A2-8418X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order

concerning her 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., and

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's

final order.

The record reveals that complainant, a Full Time Clerk, PS-5, at the

Processing and Distribution Center, located in Boston, Massachusetts,

filed a formal EEO complaint on October 13, 2001, alleging that the

agency had discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment on

the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Vietnamese), sex (female),

age (D.O.B. 2/2/55), and reprisal for prior EEO activity when on July 17,

2001, she was �assaulted� by the Tour III Manager, Distribution Operations

(MDO).

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 harassment based on race, national origin, age, and sex. Specifically,

the AJ found that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not have concluded from the

evidence that management's action was motivated by her membership in any

protected class. The AJ also found that there is no evidence to support

a link either by time or circumstance between complainant's 1998 prior

EEO activity and the agency's action.

On appeal, complainant contends, among other things, that she established

a prima facie of harassment. Complainant contends that she was subject

to unwelcome conduct, the confrontation in the conference room between

the MDO and herself, which she alleges was based on her sex, age, race,

and national origin. Complainant also contends that it was a loud and

rude confrontation that had a detrimental effect on her. In response,

the agency requests that we affirm its final order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We begin by noting that we are reviewing the AJ's decision without

a hearing, and the final agency decision adopting them, under a de

novo standard of review. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)(stating that a

�decision on an appeal from an agency's final action shall be based

on a de novo review...�); see also EEOC Management Directive for 29

C.F.R. Part 1614 (rev. Nov.9, 1999) (�EEO MD-110"), at 9-16 (providing

that an administrative judge's �decision to issue a decision without

a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)] will be reviewed

de novo�). This essentially means that we should look at this case

with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate)

or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's, factual conclusions and

legal analysis, including on the ultimate issue of whether intentional

discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal

discrimination employment statute was violated. See id. at 9-15.

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

only appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive

legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exist

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, the issuance of

a decision without a hearing is not appropriate. Similarly, an AJ may

not issue a decision without a hearing if he or she actually has to find

facts first to do so.

Based on the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510

U.S. 17 (1993), in order to prevail on a claim of harassment, complainant

must prove that: (1) she was subjected to harassment that was sufficiently

severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment and

create an abusive or hostile work environment; and (2) the harassment was

based on her membership in a protected class. See EEOC Notice No. 915.002

(March 8, 1994), Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,

at 3, 6; Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077

(March 13, 1997). The record reflects, through the testimonies of all

participants at the supervisor's meeting on July 17, 2001, that the

confrontation between complainant and the MDO concerned the subject of

employee discipline. The record reveals that the MDO asked complainant,

as an acting supervisor, whether she could discipline her employees if

warranted. In response, complainant questioned why she would need to

do so, said she would not do so, became very defensive, and complainant

and the MDO argued loudly. There is no evidence in the record to support

the conclusion that unlawful animus toward complainant's age, sex, race,

national origin or prior EEO activity motivated MDO's actions or words.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant

of summary judgment 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. The Commission therefore AFFIRMS the agency's final order.

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 25, 20004

__________________

Date