0120080561
03-04-2010
Raovrinder Singh, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Raovrinder Singh,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080561
Hearing No. 570-2007-00687X
Agency No. 4K-220-0015-07
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning his complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that, during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a Sales, Service/ Distribution Associate at the agency's
Trade Center Station in Alexandria, Virginia. Believing that he was a
victim of discrimination, complainant sought counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint.
Complainant alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment
on the bases of national origin (India), religion (Sikh), and disability
(lumbosacral strain, right elbow contusion)1 when:
1. On October 28, 2006, the Acting Supervisor of Customer Services
(Supervisor) pushed complainant down, which resulted in physical injury.
2. During 2002, the Supervisor made a statement to a co-worker that
"he would take care of us" because he believed we were from Taliban.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report. The agency informed complainant of
his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ), or alternatively, to receive a final decision from the agency.
Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ.
On October 1, 2007, an 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 as alleged. Specifically,
the AJ found complainant did not establish a discriminatory motive for
the alleged actions. Moreover, the AJ found that even if complainant
established that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, the
agency successfully established an affirmative defense to liability.
The AJ noted that it was undisputed that the Supervisor was placed
on emergency leave and the Postal Service Management investigated
complainant's harassment complaints. The AJ noted that the agency issued
a letter proposing the removal of the Supervisor which was later reduced
to a nine-day suspension.
On October 12, 2007, the agency issued a decision finding no
discrimination. The agency fully implemented the AJ's decision.
Complainant now appeals from that decision.
On appeal, complainant argued that the AJ ignored the evidence of the
severity of the physical contact and whether it unreasonably interfered
with complainant's work performance. Complainant asserted that he was
out of work for several months after being assaulted by a supervisor.
Complainant claimed that the AJ ignored direct evidence that the
supervisor assaulted complainant because the Supervisor thought that
complainant was "Taliban." Complainant stated that prompt remedial
corrective action would have involved the transfer of the supervisor
who engaged in the assault.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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, we find the issuance of summary judgment was appropriate as
there are no genuine issues of material fact. Specifically, complainant
did not provide specific evidence to create an inference that he was
singled out for the harassment alleged because of his membership in any
protected group. With regard to his disability discrimination claim,
complainant offered no circumstantial evidence to demonstrate a causal
nexus between the alleged conduct and his purported disability.2 With
regard to the statement attributed to complainant's Supervisor in
claim (2), we note in his opposition to a decision without a hearing,
complainant acknowledges that the statement itself is not actionable;
however, he states that it is evidence of the Supervisor's state of mind
in committing the alleged assault. We find that this isolated statement
in claim (2), uttered almost four years preceding the alleged harassment,
did not create an inference of discriminatory motive.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court
that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court
also 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 with the Court 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 4, 2010
__________________
Date
1 Complainant claims that his disabling condition occurred as a result
of the October 28, 2006 incident with his supervisor.
2 We do not address in this decision whether complainant is a qualified
individual with a disability.
??
??
??
??
2
0120080561
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013