Daniel E. Hill, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 9, 2002
01A20567 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 9, 2002)

01A20567

04-09-2002

Daniel E. Hill, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.


Daniel E. Hill v. United States Postal Service

01A20567

April 9, 2002

.

Daniel E. Hill,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A20567

Agency No. 1-H-321-0031-00

Hearing No. 150-A1-8140X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final

order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of 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. Complainant alleged that he was

discriminated against because of his age (fifty-eight years old),

physical disability (Cervical Spine, Left Shoulder), and retaliation

(prior EEO activity protected by unspecified statute(s)) when on November

19, 1999, he was issued a letter of demand for overpayment. The appeal

is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons,

the Commission affirms the agency's final order. For the purposes of

the foregoing decision we will assume, without finding, that complainant

is an individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act.<1>

The record reveals that the agency, relying on the representations of

the United States Department of Labor's Workers Compensation Program,

reasonably believed that complainant was compensated twice for the

same injury. Pursuant to this belief, the agency sent complainant

a demand for repayment. Later, the Department of Labor, decided to

waive collection of the overpayment. These facts are not in dispute

by complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant

received a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing

before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision

without a hearing, finding no discrimination.

The AJ correctly determined that there was no material fact in dispute,

and the AJ correctly determined that complainant failed to establish

discrimination on any of his proffered bases. However, the AJ improperly

set out the standards for considering reprisal discrimination. The AJ

found that the demand for overpayment failed to state a claim because

it did not affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

In retaliation cases, Commission precedent establishes that the

challenged action need only be based upon a retaliatory motive and

be reasonably likely to deter complainant or others from engaging in

protected activity, in order to state a claim. Lindsey v. USPS, EEOC

Request No. 05980410 (Nov. 4, 1999) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual,

No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998)). Despite this error, we affirm the AJ's

ultimate finding of no retaliation because, under these circumstances,

the agency's demand for return of overpaid compensation is not likely

to deter protected activity. In addition, complainant has proffered no

evidence that the motive to collect on the overpayment was retaliatory.

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. 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 classes.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement

of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the

right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).

Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on

the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled

"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.

A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying

complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)

(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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

April 9, 2002

Date

1 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992

to apply the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

to complaints of discrimination by federal employees or applicants

for employment.