01a55517_r
03-03-2006
Pushp L Gupta, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Pushp L Gupta v. United States Postal Service
01A55517
March 3, 2006
.
Pushp L Gupta,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A55517
Agency No. 1G-761-0053-04
Hearing No. 310-2005-00200X
DECISION
Complainant 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. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint on May 21, 2004, alleging that the
agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (Asian Indian)
when:
On February 21, 2004, complainant was excessed from her position as a
clerk and involuntarily reassigned to a Mailhandler position in Fort
Worth.
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 June 10, 2005, the AJ granted the agency's
motion for a decision without a hearing, and issued a decision, finding
no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of national origin discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that
complainant failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees
not in complainant's protected classes were treated differently under
similar circumstances when complainant, together with other employees,
were reassigned to mail handler positions in the agency's Processing
and Distribution Center in Fort Worth, Texas, as a result of the
agency's internal reorganization. The AJ found that the employee (E1)
identified by complainant as receiving preferential treatment was not
similarly situated, but was involuntarily reassigned at an earlier time,
and therefore the position into which E1 was placed was not available
when complainant and eight other employees were later excessed.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant contends that she submitted her list of
preferred positions earlier to the agency, than E1 submitted hers.
Also, complainant states that she volunteered for the position in
question (at the Mansfield station) and the agency has, in the past,
allowed volunteers to be placed in positions when the volunteers have
seniority, over involuntarily reassigned employees with less seniority.
Complainant did not appeal a previously dismissed claim.
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, 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. To the extent that complainant alleges that the procedure
whereby she was reassigned was in violation of the collective bargaining
agreement or in violation of the agency's policies regarding seniority,
the Commission notes, as did the AJ and the agency, that enforcement of
union matters is not within the Commission's purview. We observe, as the
AJ also did, that numerous employees, not in complainant's protected class
were subject to the agency's reorganization and involuntary reassignments
at the same time that complainant was excessed and reassigned.
Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to complainant, we
note that complainant failed to present evidence that any of the agency's
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's
protected class. We therefore AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding
no discrimination.
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 3, 2006
__________________
Date