0120081012
08-20-2009
William H. Fleming, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
William H. Fleming,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120081012
Hearing No. 250200600028X
Agency No. 1H381004305
DECISION
On December 19, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
November 15, 2007 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked as
a permanent limited-duty Mail Handler at the agency's Memphis, Tennessee
Processing and Distribution Center. On July 8, 2005, complainant filed
an EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against on the bases
of disability (panic anxiety disorder) and reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when, between April 23, 2005 and May 29, 2005, management
denied him overtime.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case found that, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to complainant, a
decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine
issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without
a hearing on September 28, 2007, finding no discrimination. The agency
subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding. On appeal,
complainant contends that the AJ erred in issuing a decision without
a hearing. Complainant also raises a variety of other issues outside
the scope of the instant complaint.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD
issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the
agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may
properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11,
2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11,
2003).
After a careful review of the record we find that the AJ's issuance of a
decision without a hearing was appropriate. The record has been adequately
developed, complainant was given notice of the AJ's determination to issue
a decision without a hearing, he was given an opportunity to respond to
the motion, he was given a comprehensive statement of undisputed facts,
and he had the opportunity to engage in discovery. On appeal complainant
asserts that the AJ should have held a hearing. However, we find that,
even if we assume all facts in favor of complainant, a reasonable
fact finder could not find in complainant's favor, as explained below.
Therefore, no genuine issues of material fact exist.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Here, assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima facie case
of disability and reprisal discrimination, the agency nonetheless
articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
Complainant's supervisor (S1) states that complainant "refuses to ride
equipment" and that this limits the amount of overtime work available
for him. (Report of Investigation, Affidavit B). S1 further states
that the facility required overtime for "mail prep, or to unload mail
trailers...[n]either of which [complainant] is willing to do." Id.
The record shows that complainant worked overtime on April 24 and May 29,
2005. Complainant's Manager (M1) states that complainant could not work
overtime at the same rate as other employees in complainant's facility
because he refused to perform numerous job duties. (R.O.I., Affidavit C).
Complainant does not dispute any of this evidence. Accordingly, we concur
with the AJ's finding that complainant failed to proffer any evidence
to show that the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory or
retaliatory animus. In so finding, we note that complainant failed to
specify any exact dates on which the agency allegedly denied him overtime.
(Agency's Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1).
CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to
complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further
find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb
the AJ's decision and the agency's final order is AFFIRMED.
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
August 20, 2009
Date
2
0120081012
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120081012
6
0120081012