0120090784
05-12-2009
Velva A. Hudgins, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Velva A. Hudgins,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090784
Agency No. 1K-291-0011-07
Hearing No. 430-2007-00421X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's appeal from the agency's November 19, 2008 final action concerning her 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.
Complainant alleged that she was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (female) when:
1. on February 1 and 2, 2007, a male co-worker made sexual comments and gestures towards her;
2. on May 17, 2007, after she reported to her supervisor that she was in pain, the supervisor failed to file an incident report or provide her with the required forms to receive authorized treatment; and
3. on May 17, 2007, her supervisor insisted on seeing her prescribed prosthetic equipment used for prolonged standing and she stated "you veterans think you are all protected."
Following the investigation into her formal complaint, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On November 3, 2008, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the agency. The agency fully implemented the AJ's decision in its final action.
The AJ found that complainant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against on the bases of race and sex. The AJ further found that complainant did not prove she was subjected to harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to render his work environment hostile.
The AJ noted that in regard to claim 1, management took immediate corrective action concerning complainant's allegations that a male co-worker (CW) made sexual comments and gestures towards her. Specifically, the AJ noted that according to the Manager (M1), he conducted an investigation concerning complainant's allegations. M1 further stated that following the investigation, CW was removed from working with complainant and issued a 14-day suspension.
Regarding claim 2, the AJ noted that according to complainant's supervisor (S1), complainant informed her that her back was hurting and asked which forms she needed to take to the doctor. S1 denied that complainant told her she was in pain at the time. Furthermore, S1 stated that because complainant did not request to complete an accident report, a report was not completed. Moreover, the AJ noted that complainant admitted that she did not specifically request accident reports but believed that it was management's responsibility to provide documentation to her.
Regarding claim 3, the AJ noted that while S1 denied requesting to see complainant's crutches on May 17, 2007, she made a similar request on May 4, 2007 asking complainant to bring in the crutches and to provide the agency with appropriate documentation to use the crutches. The AJ further noted that S1 stated that she was not aware of any crutches that were approved for use around or near mechanized equipment. With respect to complainant's allegation that S1 stated "you veterans all think you are protected" to her, S1 denied making the statement. Finally, the AJ concluded that complainant did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's proffered reasons for its action were a pretext for discrimination.
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.
Complainant has offered no persuasive arguments on appeal regarding the AJ's decision to issue a decision without a hearing, or regarding the AJ's findings on the merits. Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final action, 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 unlawful discrimination occurred.
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
May 12, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120090784
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120090784