0120112874
10-14-2011
Darren J. Alexander, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.
Darren J. Alexander,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112874
Hearing No. 532-2010-00085X
Agency No. 4C-440-0213-09
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant’s
appeal from the Agency’s March 31, 2011 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a City Letter Carrier at the Agency’s Pearlbrook Post Office
in Cleveland, Ohio. On December 7, 2009, Complainant filed a formal
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis
of race (African-American) when he was issued a Notice of Suspension
(No Time Off Suspension) of 14 days or less.
The Agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation.
At the conclusion of the investigation Complainant requested that the
matter be assigned to an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) for a hearing.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding that Complainant
had failed to adduce evidence that he had been discriminated against.
The Agency’s final order fully implemented the AJ’s decision.
From that order Complainant brings the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. In this case, for the reasons discussed below,
we find that the issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate.
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). He must
generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would
support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with
where the Agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons
for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460
U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (Nov. 23, 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, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tx. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
256 (1981); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842
(Nov. 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351
(Dec. 14, 1995).
Here, the Agency explains that Complainant was disciplined because he
regularly failed to deliver his mail route within the time allotted.
Documentary evidence establishes that during the period in question,
Complainant repeatedly worked unauthorized overtime to deliver his route.
This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the imposition of
discipline. Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence that the
Agency’s reasons for its actions are a pretext designed to conceal
discriminatory animus. Indeed, Complainant implicitly concedes that he
has failed to perform his duties as directed by management. He argues
that management has mistakenly assigned him more work than can be done
in an 8-hour shift. Assuming this to be true, it may be evidence of
mismanagement but it does not support an inference that the Agency’s
reasons for its disciplining Complainant are untrue.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the Agency's final order.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
October 14, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120112874
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120112874