0120121455
07-13-2012
Henry L. Donald, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Henry L. Donald,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121455
Hearing No. 410-2011-00342X
Agency No. 1H-301-0034-11
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's December 29, 2011 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Tractor-Trailer Operator, P-08, at the Agency's Processing and Distribution Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
On March 21, 2011, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior protected activity when:
his leave request for March 10-12, 2011 was denied.
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. Thereafter, the Agency moved for summary judgment, requesting that the instant formal complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). The record reflects that Complainant submitted a response to the motion by the December 16, 2011 deadline. However, Complainant inadvertently sent the response to the EEOC Atlanta District Office instead of the AJ. When the AJ received no timely objection from Complainant, the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination on December 20, 2011.1
On December 29, 2011, the Agency subsequently issued a final action adopting the AJ's decision.
In his final decision, the AJ found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race and reprisal discrimination. The AJ nevertheless found that Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant failed to show were a pretext. Specifically, the AJ noted that Complainant requested leave for March 10-12, 2011, on the following three separate occasions: February 8, 2011, March 2 and 7, 2011. The AJ further noted that Complainant's supervisor (S1), an African-American, disapproved these requests due to operational needs. The AJ noted that S1 explained in response to a grievance by Complainant, that there was a shortage of personnel at the relevant time, and the Agency was contemplating further reductions in staff. The AJ noted that during the relevant time there were seven Tractor-Trailer Operators, two of whom were white, whose requests for leave in March 2011, were denied.
Further, the AJ noted that on March 8, 2011, Complainant submitted a fourth request for leave for March 10-12, 2011, and this time he additionally requested leave for March 9, 2011. S1 approved Complainant's request because Complainant wrote on the form that his brother had suffered a heart attack. The AJ noted that the record reflects at that time, S1 was not aware of Complainant's prior protected activity.
Complainant asserted that the Manager Transportation Operations (MTO), a Caucasian, was the "unseen hand" behind the denial of his leave requests. However, the AJ determined that Complainant has produced no evidence to support his assertion. The AJ noted that assuming S1 was indeed acting at the direction of MTO, the evidence shows that Complainant, whose request was eventually approved, was the only Tractor-Trailer Operator at the Atlanta PDC, whose request for leave was approved in March 2011.
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 did not make any new contentions on appeal. The issues and arguments he raised in his response to the Agency's motion are essentially the same as made in his formal complaint and to the EEO Counselor. We further find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination. We determine that Complainant has failed to identify any genuine issues of material fact that require resolution through a hearing in this matter. The evidence of record fully supports the AJ's determination that Complainant did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that discrimination occurred.
Accordingly, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final action because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred.
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
July 13, 2012
__________________
Date
1 By letter to Complainant and the Agency, dated January 3, 2012, the AJ noted that the AJ did not receive a response prior to December 16, 2011, although the AJ acknowledged that Complainant mailed a response to the motion that was stamped as received by the Commission on December 21, 2011. The AJ noted, however, that by that time, the case had already been disposed of, but the AJ further noted that Complainant's request would be forwarded for to the Agency's National Equal Employment Opportunity Investigative Services Office (NEEOISO) for inclusion in the hearing record.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121455
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121455
6
0120121455