01A30582_r
03-13-2003
Faith Dent, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Faith Dent v. United States Postal Service
01A30582
March 13, 2003
.
Faith Dent,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A30582
Agency Nos. 1G-708-0075-00
1G-708-0085-01
Hearing No. 270-A2-9023X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 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.
The record reveals that complainant filed formal EEO complaints alleging
that the agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability
(chronic diabetes and job-related injury) and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when:
(1) In July 2000, complainant's request for leave under the Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was denied; and
(2) On July 3, 2001, she was scheduled to work on July 3, 2001, and
junior employees were not.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant did not
establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons
for its actions were a pretext to mask discrimination. On October
11, 2002, the agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's findings.
Complainant submits no new contentions on appeal and the agency requests
that we affirm is final order.
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 issues of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
447 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a courts'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 an
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.
After careful review of the record, we find that the AJ's decision to
issue a ruling without a hearing was appropriate.
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether she has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460, U.S. 711, 714-717
(1983). The Commission will, for the purposes of analysis only,
presume that complainant is an individual with a disability and that
she is covered under the Rehabilitation Act.
We find that the agency has stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions, supported by the evidence of record. Regarding claim 1,
the record indicates that complainant's requested FMLA leave so that she
could babysit her grandchildren as a favor to her daughter. The agency
determined that complainant's request is not covered under the rules
governing the FMLA. We find that the agency's denial of complainant's
request for FMLA leave to babysit her daughter's children was based on
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
Regarding claim 2, the record indicates that complainant's regularly
scheduled day off was July 4, 2001, but that because of the holiday,
her day off would have been July 3, 2001. The record also indicates that
complainant was one of a group of agency employees on a list of volunteers
to work holidays and therefore, she was scheduled to work on July 3, 2001.
Because the agency has proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions, complainant now bears the burden of establishing that
the agency's stated reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination.
Shapiro v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Request No. 05960403
(December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this by showing that the agency
was motivated by a discriminatory reason. Id. (citing St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)). The Commission finds
that complainant has failed to present evidence to support a finding or
create an inference that the agency's articulated reasons for denying
her FMLA leave request and for scheduling her to work on July 3, 2001,
are a mask for discrimination.
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 classes.
The agency's final action implementing the AJ's finding of no
discrimination is 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 13, 2003
__________________
Date