01A30373_r
03-04-2003
Tommy W. Inman, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tommy W. Inman v. United States Postal Service
01A30373
March 4, 2003
.
Tommy W. Inman,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30373
Agency No. 4G-760-0035-02
Hearing No. 310-A2-5120X
DECISION
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in which he claimed that the
agency discriminated against him on the bases of his disability (left
knee replacement) and in reprisal for his previous EEO activity under
the Rehabilitation Act when on September 6, 2001, he was removed from
his position as a Letter Carrier, grade 6.
The agency investigated the complaint and thereafter referred the matter
to an Administrative Judge (AJ), pursuant to complainant's request for
a hearing. Without holding a hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding
no discrimination. The agency issued a final action concurring with the
AJ's decision. It is from this final action that complainant now appeals.
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.
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation
of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a case claiming
discrimination is a three-step process as set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973), and its progeny.
For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie
case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a
prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately
prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
This order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step
normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case,
need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue,
the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the
McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions
were motivated by discrimination. United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900150 (June 28, 1990).
For purposes of analysis, we will assume, arguendo, that complainant has
established a prima facie case of disability and reprisal discrimination.
Next, we shall consider whether the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. The agency stated that it
removed complainant because he falsified his employment application by
omitting a prior employment at which he sustained an on the job injury
to his elbow. The agency noted that complainant failed to disclose in
his medical history the injury to his elbow. We find that the agency
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its removal of
complainant.
A review of the record reveals that complainant has not established that
the agency's stated reasons were pretext intended to mask discriminatory
intent. Complainant claims that although his job application with the
agency was on file for several years, the agency did not issue him
a proposed removal until thirty days after he filed his OWCP claim.
Complainant argues that there is no legitimate business reason for his
termination given that his current injury involves his left knee and his
previous injury was to his arm. Complainant has not claimed on appeal
that he did not falsify his job application. Complainant failed to
establish that any individuals outside his protected group were found to
have falsified their job application but were not terminated. We find
that complainant has not submitted persuasive argument or evidence to
establish that his removal was based on discriminatory purposes rather
than the reasons set forth by the agency.
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's
final action finding no discrimination, because the Administrative
Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a
preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that disability
or reprisal discrimination occurred.
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 4, 2003
__________________
Date