Lauretta Spears, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 17, 2007
0120072528 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 17, 2007)

0120072528

07-17-2007

Lauretta Spears, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Lauretta Spears,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072528

Agency No. 1F-946-0048-06

Hearing No. 550-2007-00180X

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her complaint

of unlawful employment discrimination. Complainant alleged that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American)

and age (date of birth: June 30, 1953) when on August 17, 2006, she was

terminated during her probationary period.

On March 27, 2007, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision

without a hearing finding that there was no genuine issue of material

fact in dispute, and concluded that complainant had not been discriminated

against. Specifically, the AJ found that the agency presented legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which complainant failed

to rebut. On April 2, 2007, the agency, fully implementing the AJ's

decision, issued a decision finding no discrimination. Complainant

appealed from that 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.

We find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for terminating complainant. The Supervisor of Customer Service

stated that complainant was terminated during her probationary period

for unsatisfactory work performance and for failure to meet qualifying

standards. Specifically, complainant was cited for sweeping errors on

June 19, 2005, which caused a late dispatch of mail; failure to properly

process five trays of mail on July 18, 2006, which resulted in additional

work for carriers at the delivery unit; incomplete processing of mail

on July 29, 2006, which resulted in processing errors; and incomplete

processing of mail on August 5, 2006, which resulted in processing errors.

The Supervisor of Customer Service asserted that, despite continual

training and discussions, complainant was unable to keep up with the

workload, she was constantly making errors, not paying attention to

what she was doing, and mislabeling and delaying mail. Complainant has

failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

its actions. Complainant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that complainant's termination was motivated by discrimination

on the bases of race or age.

Accordingly, the agency's decision finding 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

July 17, 2007

__________________

Date

4

0120072528

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036