0120063380
02-23-2007
Charles R. Hunt, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Charles R. Hunt,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200633801
Agency No. 1H-302-0031-05
Hearing No. 110-2006-00049X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning his complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination. Complainant alleged discrimination
on the bases of race (African-American), color (black) and in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. On May 1, 2005, complainant was assigned specific duties to perform.
2. On May 31, 2005, complainant was not granted his request to change
his scheduled work hours.
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 March 28, 2006, the AJ issued a decision
without a hearing and effectively dismissed complainant's complaint.
The AJ dismissed claim 1 for failure to state a claim and claim 2 as
moot. The AJ also found no discrimination. The agency fully implemented
the AJ's decision. Complainant now appeals from that decision.
Failure to State a Claim
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in
relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved
employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been
discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103,
.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined
an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with
respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which
there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
We find that complainant is not aggrieved as a result of the assignment
of duties alleged in claim 1. Complainant merely states that he was
assigned duties. Complainant does not claim and the record does not
indicate that complainant performed the assigned duties. The AJ found,
and the Commission agrees, that complainant does not claim that he
actually performed the duties in question. Complainant has failed to
explain how the assignment of duties rendered him aggrieved. Nothing in
the record indicates that complainant suffered any harm or loss with
respect to a term, condition or privilege of his employment for which
there is a remedy. Therefore, we find that claim 1 is properly dismissed
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
Summary Judgment
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.
We find that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. The Manager of Maintenance Operations stated
that he denied complainant's request to change his scheduled work
hours because complainant has had numerous changes of schedules over
the last four years. The Manager of Maintenance Operations said that
complainant has not worked his regular bid schedule continuously for a
long period of time and he felt that complainant had been accommodated
on numerous changes of schedules and complainant needed to return to his
bid assignment. Complainant failed to show that the agency's reasons are
pretext for discrimination. We find that complainant failed to show,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was discriminated against
on the bases of race, color or reprisal.
The agency's decision dismissing claim 1 and finding no discrimination
as to claim 2 is AFFIRMED.
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
February 23, 2007
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, your case has been redesignated with the
above referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
2
0120063380
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120063380