0120141214
05-20-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120141214
Hearing No. 490-2012-00109X
Agency No. 1C-371-0002-11
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's January 10, 2014 final action concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Supervisor Distribution Operations at the Agency's Nashville, Tennessee Processing and Distribution Center.
On May 19, 2011, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), disability (feet/legs), and age (over 40) when:
on March 18, 2011, one part of her modified job duties were given to another employee to perform.1
After the investigation, Complainant was provided a copy of the investigative file and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Thereafter, the Agency filed a Motion for a Decision Without a Hearing. On December 27, 2013, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
In his decision, the AJ found that the record contained the following undisputed facts. Complainant was a limited duty employee as a result of an on-the-job injury. Complainant had several surgeries on her feet, resulting in her inability to walk or stand for long periods of time. Complainant stated that because of her injuries, her daily activities are limited. Complainant also stated that her medical condition is permanent.
Further, the AJ noted that Complainant's job duties included the following activities: monitoring the security system which included keeping the system operational, ordering supplies, submitting requested reports, working with outside vendors to ensure full operation, and making photo identification for employees. Complainant stated that her "security control" coordinator duties were given to an employee. The AJ noted that Complainant claimed that the reason she was given as to why one part of her modified job duties were given to another employee was that the District Manager wanted all of the security control concerns to be in one place.
The AJ noted that in his affidavit, the Manager of Post Office Operations (manager) stated that he authorized adding security control to a named employee "since he was serving as the security control for the dist[rict]." The manager acknowledged that Complainant had asserted that part of her duties were taken away from her and given to the employee because he is the spouse of the District Manager's secretary. The manager stated "I do not see the correlation. [Employee] had the time to perform and I felt the function should belong to Operations Program Support." The manager further stated "there had been an ongoing issue in getting badges made timely prior to assigning the duties to Operations Program Support."
The AJ noted that the Senior Plant Manager stated there was a change to Complainant's duties regarding making badges, but there was no change to Complainant's duty schedule. The Senior Plant Manager also stated that Complainant suffered no financial harm as a result of the modification and that at no point was she asked to perform additional duties.
Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation, the AJ found no discrimination. The AJ concluded that the Agency articulated, legitimate, nondiscrimination reasons for its actions which Complainant did not show were a pretext for discrimination based on her race, sex, disability or age.2
The Agency fully implemented the AJ's decision in its final action. The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 provided no argument on appeal and has not identified material facts in dispute that require resolution by a hearing. The AJ's decision to grant summary judgment, and the findings of fact, are supported by the substantial evidence in the record. The AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. Complainant did not present evidence that any of the Agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward her race, sex, disability or age. Accordingly, we conclude that Complainant failed to meet her burden of proving pretext.
The Agency's final action implementing the AJ's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 20, 2014
__________________
Date
1 On June 6, 2011, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the instant formal complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Commission reversed the Agency's dismissal and remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing. Hamilton v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113457 (November 25, 2011). Following the Commission's decision, the Agency processed the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108, which is now the subject of the instant appeal.
2 For purposes of this analysis, we assume, without so finding, that Complainant was a qualified individual with a disability.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120141214
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120141214
6
0120141214