01A32899_r
03-12-2004
Chalon R. Patton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Chalon R. Patton v. United States Postal Service
01A32899
3/12/2004
.
Chalon R. Patton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A32899
Agency No. 1-H-337-0001-02
Hearing No. 150-A2-8460X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Commission from an agency's
final action regarding complainant's 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.
In her formal complaint dated December 12, 2001, complainant alleged
that the agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the basis of
race (African-American) when she received a Letter of Warning on October
5, 2001. The record contains a copy of the Letter of Warning at issue.
Therein, the letter sets forth two charges, complainant's unsatisfactory
attendance/tardiness and complainant's unsatisfactory performance.<1>
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 February 4, 2003, the AJ issued a decision without a
hearing, finding no discrimination.<2>
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race discrimination. The AJ found that complainant failed
to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in complainant's
protected class were treated differently under similar circumstances.
The AJ noted that complainant listed several comparatives in the Report
of Investigation; however, the AJ found that these employees were not
similarly situated to complainant for various reasons. Specifically,
the AJ stated that the employees, whom complainant had referred to
as comparative employees, had a different supervisor than complainant
during the relevant period; or that their attendance and/or tardiness
records were not comparable to complainant's records.
The agency did not issue a final decision. Because the agency did not
issue a final order within forty days of receipt of the AJ's decision,
the Commission determines that the AJ's decision is the final action of
the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(i).
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, 322-323 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equipment Corporation, 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is
�material� if it has the potential to affect the outcome of a 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.
Specifically, we agree with the AJ's finding that the employees, cited
by complainant as comparative employees, were not similarly situated to
complainant. 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.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the AJ's
decision finding no discrimination, which became the agency's final
action.
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
3/12/2004
Date
1The Letter of Warning, concerning the charge of unsatisfactory
performance, states that complainant was watching television for several
minutes, prior to punching out for her lunch break.
2In her decision, the AJ stated that complainant submitted a copy
of another EEO complaint, in response to the AJ's Notice of Intent
to Issue a Decision Without a Hearing, requesting that the other EEO
complaint be consolidated with the instant complaint. The AJ found
that the issues in the other complaint related to a reassignment or an
attempted reassignment, and that they were not like or related to the
instant complaint. The AJ stated that the other complaint would not be
consolidated with the instant complaint but that complainant may continue
to pursue it through the appropriate EEO complaint process.