01A05138_r
06-03-2002
James E. Davis, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James E. Davis v. United States Postal Service
01A05138
June 3, 2002
.
James E. Davis,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A05138
Agency No. 1G-756-0076-98
Hearing No. 310-99-5601X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from an agency decision dated June
23, 2000, finding no discrimination concerning his complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination. Complainant alleges that he was discriminated
against on the bases of race and sex when he was issued a Letter of
Removal for filing a false on-the-job injury claim. Specifically,
complainant argues that he was injured on May 12, 1998, when a manager
flipped over an APC of rewrap injuring him. Complainant, on March
16, 1998, filed a Report of Hazard, Unsafe Condition or Practice form
reporting the incident. On March 20, 1998, complainant filed a Notice
of Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of Pay/Compensation form.
After an investigation, complainant's supervisor found no injury and,
on April 9, 1998, submitted a Disciplinary Request Form to the Labor
Relations Office proposing complainant's removal. On May 15, 1998,
complainant's supervisor issued complainant a Notice of Removal on the
grounds of �Unsatisfactory Service - Filing a False Claim of On the
Job Injury.�
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Mail Handler at the agency's Dallas Bulk Mail Center facility.
An EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), without holding a hearing, issued
a decision on March 14, 2000, finding that complainant's complaint was
proper for summary judgment. The AJ concluded that complainant �failed
to present or identify any material facts which place the Agency's
articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions in dispute.�
On June 23, 2000, the agency issued a decision fully implementing the
AJ's decision.
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.
After a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ erred when
she concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact in
this case. According to the AJ's decision, on February 22, 2000,
the AJ issued a Show Cause Order, ordering the parties to provide
any disputed material facts or objections to a recommended decision
without a hearing. Complainant, in response to the Show Cause Order
submitted a statement from Mr. W which stated that �I, [Mr. W], was in
the bathroom when [complainant] came in, and I asked him what was wrong,
he showed me his left leg that was bleeding.� The AJ found that the
statement �does not provide enough credible evidence to dispute the
material facts in this case.� Complainant, in response to the Show
Cause Order, also submitted a hospital emergency department forms which
shows that complainant received stitches on March 13, 1998, one day
after the accident occurred. The AJ, in the decision states that it
is �unclear why, if he suffered an injury on the night of March 12,
1998, severe enough to require thirteen stitches, he would travel at
least fifty miles for emergency medical treatment, when there are over
thirty hospitals in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.� The AJ states that
�[she does] not find this documentation sufficiently credible evidence
that the Complainant suffered an on-the-job injury on March 12, 1998.�
We find that the evidence presented by complainant in response to the
Show Cause Order is sufficient to show that there is a genuine issue as to
the agency's motivation for removing complainant. The AJ in the instant
matter found complainant's evidence not to be credible. The Commission
finds that this credibility determination is best made after a hearing
and an opportunity for testimony and cross-examination. Therefore, we
find that the instant matter was not proper for summary judgment and we
shall remand the matter so that complainant may have a hearing.
The agency's decision is VACATED and we REMAND the complaint to the
agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the
Order herein.
ORDER
The agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC
field office the request for a hearing within 15 calendar days of the
date this decision becomes final. The agency is directed to submit a
copy of the complaint file to the EEOC Hearings Unit within 15 calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall provide
written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth
below that the complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings
Unit. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the
complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the agency shall
issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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
June 3, 2002
__________________
Date