0120054449
01-19-2007
Paula D. Eli, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Paula D. Eli,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200544491
Agency No. 4G700017203
Hearing No. 270-2004-00069X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated May 16,
2005, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint. In her
complaint, dated September 2, 2003, complainant, a City Letter Carrier,
alleged discrimination based on race (Black), sex (female), disability
(fractured tarfal meta talsa) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity
when on June 9, 2003, and continuing her supervisor denied her overtime.
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On April
21, 2005, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The agency's final action implemented 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.
Upon review, the Commission finds that the AJ's issuance of a decision
without a hearing was proper in this case since there is no genuine issue
of material fact. The AJ stated that assuming arguendo that complainant
had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not giving her
overtime, i.e., because her restrictions prevented her from performing
the duties of a city carrier.
The AJ noted that on November 16, 1994, complainant fractured her left
foot on the job. Since that time, complainant was on limited duty,
doing office work, running errands for the supervisors and casing mail.
Complainant's restrictions limited her walking, standing, pushing,
pulling, bending, stooping, and lifting. Due to her walking limitation,
complainant was unable to perform street work or carry a walking route,
and there were not any driving routes at the instant postal station.
The AJ stated that complainant presented no evidence that overtime was
available on the days she was scheduled to work. In fact, complainant
claimed that overtime was performed on days that she was not scheduled
to work. However, complainant's supervisors stated that they did not
have sufficient work within her restrictions to warrant her coming in on
unscheduled days. The AJ also indicated that the employees who worked
overtime were not similarly situated to complainant because they did
not have her medical restrictions nor did they perform the same job
functions.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the agency articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged action. The
Commission also finds that complainant failed to provide any evidence
that the articulated reason was pretextual or that any agency action was
motivated by discrimination. The Commission does not address in this
decision whether complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.
Furthermore, we note that complainant has not claimed that she was denied
a reasonable accommodation.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of
all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is hereby
AFFIRMED because the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was
appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish
that discrimination occurred.
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
January 19, 2007
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, your case has been redesignated with the
above referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
4
0120054449
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036