01a45420
04-20-2005
Virgil Woods, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Virgil Woods v. United States Postal Service
01A45420
April 20, 2005
.
Virgil Woods,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A45420
Agency Nos. 4E-870-0092-99
4E-870-0009-01
Hearing
Nos. 350-2002-08130X
350-2001-08119X
DECISION
Complainant, a Letter Carrier, PS-05, filed a formal EEO complaint in
which he claimed that the agency discriminated against him on the bases
of his race (African-American), age (dob 6/20/41), and in reprisal for
his previous EEO activity under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act when (1) his amount of overtime was approximately twenty
hours less than other workers on the overtime desired list for the period
of December 5, 1998 - February 26, 1999; (2) a double standard was used in
the selection of overtime assignments on August 17, 2000 and September 13,
2000; and (3) he was not afforded the same opportunity as coworkers for
overtime assignments during the period of January 2001 through March 2001.
The agency accepted the complaint for investigation. Subsequent to
the completion of the investigation, the agency referred the matter
to an Administrative Judge (AJ), pursuant to complainant's request for
a hearing. Without holding a hearing, the AJ issued a summary judgment
decision finding no discrimination with regard to each of the claims
set forth in the complaint. On July 16, 2004, the agency issued a final
action implementing 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.
With respect to each of complainant's claims concerning not being assigned
sufficient overtime, we shall assume arguendo that complainant set forth a
prima facie case under the alleged bases. The agency stated with regard
to claim (1) that complainant had fewer overtime hours during the second
quarter of 1999 because complainant took sick leave for over one week in
April and other carriers on the overtime desired list were required to
work a non-scheduled day in April due to other employees taking annual
and sick leave. According to complainant's supervisor, it was difficult
in general to assign overtime to complainant because complainant would
request overtime for his route, receive approval, but then frequently
return early because he was a fast carrier. Complainant's supervisor
stated that by then the overtime opportunity had already been assigned. We
find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its actions. With regard to claim (1), we find that complainant
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
stated reason was pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivation.
As for claim (2), we agree with the AJ that complainant has not shown
that his race, age, or reprisal were factors in the assignment of overtime
on August 17, 2000 and September 13, 2000.
With respect to claim (3), the record does not support complainant's
discrimination claim for the period of January 1, 2001 through March
31, 2001. Complainant worked 16.97 hours of overtime during this period.
Two coworkers received less overtime than complainant and four coworkers
received overtime amounts in the same range that complaint received.
We find that complainant has not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that he was discriminated against on the bases of race, age,
or reprisal with regard to the issuance of overtime opportunities for
the period of January 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.
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 race, age, or reprisal discrimination.
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
April 20, 2005
__________________
Date