0120064650
03-13-2008
Anna Widelock, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Anna Widelock,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200646501
Hearing No. 160-2005-00565X
Agency No. 1A-111-0007-05
DECISION
On August 7, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's July
21, 2006, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the
agency's final order.
At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, complainant
worked as a Maintenance Support Clerk at the agency's Queens Processing
and Distribution Center facility in Flushing, New York. On October 13,
2004, complainant was in an accident at work that resulted in her injuring
her knee. Complainant did not report the accident until the next day.
Complainant was issued a letter of warning (LOW) for failure to follow
instructions, for failing to report the accident immediately, and since
she had two prior service talks on file which involved accident reporting
procedures. On December 23, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that she was discriminated against on the bases of disability
(left knee replacement), age (D.O.B. 03/30/35), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when she received a LOW dated November 30, 2004.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ informed the parties that he intended to
issue a decision without a hearing and requested responses from the
parties. The agency requested that the AJ issue a decision without
a hearing in its June 21, 2006 brief. Complainant also provided a
response to the agency's notice. The AJ ultimately issued a decision
without a hearing on July 17, 2006. The AJ found that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.
Accordingly, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish that a
hearing was warranted. The agency subsequently issued a final order
adopting the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that she was
subjected to discrimination as alleged.
In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ's legal
and factual conclusions, and the agency's final order adopting them,
de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a); EEOC Management Directive 110,
Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999). We must first determine whether
it was appropriate for the AJ to have issued a decision without a hearing
on this record. 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, issuing
a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context
of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the
record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding
a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling
is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without
a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed
material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and
(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.
According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary
judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the
administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount of
discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision
without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that
an administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after
receiving an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).
We find that the record was adequately developed for a decision to be
issued without a hearing. Moreover, we find that both parties had ample
opportunity to respond to the AJ's notice of intent to issue a decision
without a hearing.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department
of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997);
Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December
14, 1995).
Assuming, arugendo, that complainant established a prima facie case
of age and disability discrimination and retaliation, we find that the
agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.
The record reflects that complainant's supervisor (S1) issued the LOW
to complainant because complainant had an accident at work and failed to
report it immediately as she was previously instructed to do. Moreover,
S1 provided that complainant had two prior service talks on file, which
dealt with the agency's accident reporting policy.
We find that even taking the facts in the light most favorable to
complainant, she failed to establish that the agency's proffered reason
for issuing the LOW was a pretext for discrimination. Complainant failed
to put forth any evidence to raise any question as to the credence of
the agency's reason for issuing her an LOW. Moreover, nothing in the
record supports complainant's assertions that the agency was motivated by
animus toward her protected classes. As such, we find that complainant
failed to establish that genuine issue of material fact exists such that
a hearing is warranted.
Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions
on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we affirm
the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision without a hearing finding
that no 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
___03-13-2008_______________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the
above referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
2
0120064650
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120064650