01a45176
03-25-2005
Patsy Parrish, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Patsy Parrish v. United States Postal Service
01A45176
March 25, 2005
.
Patsy Parrish,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A45176
Agency No. 4G-770-0394-03
Hearing No. 330-2004-00115X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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. and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29
U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms
the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Clerk at the agency's Baytown
Post Office facility, filed a formal EEO complaint on October 23, 2003,
alleging that the agency discriminated against her on the bases of race
(Caucasian), color (white), sex (female), and age (D.O.B. 08/20/46),
when on May 31, 2003, her request to be allowed to work at the Main
Office Window was denied due to her limitations.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 12, 2004, the 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. The AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race, color, sex, or age discrimination. The AJ found that the
comparative employees cited by complainant were not similarly situated
to complainant . The AJ found that even assuming that complainant was
able to establish a prima facie case, complainant has failed to rebut
the agency's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for denying her request
to be allowed to work at the Main Office Window.
The agency, on July 16, 2004, issued a decision adopting the AJ's
decision. Complainant now appeals 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.
The agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying
complainant's request to work in the Main Office. The Postmaster<1>
and complainant's immediate Supervisor reviewed complainant's light
duty request which indicated that she could not lift over ten pounds,
and determined that she could be accommodated at Station A which was her
bid job and assigned work place. The Postmaster then suggested to the
Supervisor that complainant be provided with assistance at Station A,
or assistance with lifting packages over ten pounds. The Postmaster
also advised complainant that he did not need nor want to move employees
between two stations based on a ten pound lifting restriction.
The Commission finds that the agency articulated, legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action which was not persuasively
rebutted by complainant. The agency considered complainant's light
duty request in light of her restrictions and determined that she did
not need to be transferred to the Main Office. The agency was able to
fulfill complainant's light duty request at her assigned work station,
Station A. Complainant has failed to provide evidence to show that the
agency's decision to grant her light duty request at her assigned work
station, rather than at the Main Office, was to discriminate against her.
Moreover, complainant has not shown that she was treated any differently
from other employees who are similarly situated to complainant who
requested light duty.
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 any additional
evidence on appeal that any of the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's protected classes.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision 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 25, 2005
__________________
Date
1Although the Postmaster is the Postmaster
for the Webster Post Office, he was the Officer in Charge of the Baytown
offices when complainant requested to work at the Main Office.