01a51578
03-23-2005
Angeline L. Koch, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Angeline L. Koch v. United States Postal Service
01A51578
March 23, 2005
.
Angeline L. Koch,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51578
Agency No. 1J-484-0011-02
Hearing No. 230-2004-00079X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
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.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Complainant, a Parcel Post Distribution Machine Operator, PS-05, at the
agency's Detroit Bulk Mail Center in Allen Park, Michigan, filed a formal
EEO complaint on January 23, 2002, claiming that the agency discriminated
against her on the basis of race (Caucasian) when on October 29, 2001,
she was issued a Letter of Warning.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). On February 9, 2004, the AJ issued an
Acknowledgment and Order, giving the parties an opportunity to engage
in discover and to submit any Motion for a Decision Without a Hearing.
The agency thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative,
a Respondent's Motion and Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment.
In its motion, the agency argued for the AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing in favor of the agency, finding no discrimination. The agency
further argued that because complainant's Letter of Warning was reduced
to an official discussion in a grievance settlement on November 8,
2001, complainant was not aggrieved. The agency argued that even if
complainant was aggrieved by the alleged action, then complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. The agency
argued that complainant failed to demonstrate that she was treated
differently from similarly situated employees under similar circumstances.
Furthermore, the agency argued that complainant was issued a Letter of
Warning because of her misconduct, not race.
On September 20, 2004, the AJ found no dispute of material fact,
and proceeded to issue a decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The AJ concluded that because complainant was issued
a Letter of Warning, she was aggrieved. The AJ further concluded
that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination. The AJ found that complainant failed to demonstrate
that similarly situated employees, not in complainant's protected class,
were treated more favorably under similar circumstances.
On September 24, 2004, the agency issued a Notice of Final Action wherein
it implemented the AJ's decision finding no 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.
The agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
employment actions. The agency determined that complainant was issued
a Letter of Warning for failure to follow her former Supervisor's
instructions to go to another assignment, and was later observed
socializing with co-workers until the end of the tour. In an affidavit
prepared by complainant's former Supervisor, the former Supervisor
stated that she issued complainant a letter of warning when on several
occasions, complainant was observed being absent from job assignments.
The Supervisor stated that through service talks and discussions,
complainant had been informed that "concrete action will be taken
if employee continues to leave job assignment without permission."
Moreover, the Supervisor stated that in the past, she issued similar
discipline to other employees, as well as to complainant, for similar
reasons.
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. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected class.
The agency's final action implementing the AJ's finding of no
discrimination is therefore AFFIRMED.
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 23, 2005
__________________
Date