01a42359_r
06-09-2004
David Johnson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
David Johnson v. United States Postal Service
01A42359
June 9, 2004
.
David Johnson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42359
Agency No. 1F-904-0066-00
Hearing
No. 340-2002-03463X
DECISION
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in which he claimed that the
agency discriminated against him on the bases of his disability (knee)
and in reprisal for his previous EEO activity under the Rehabilitation
Act when in August 2000, the agency's Accounting Office sought to collect
from him a debt in the amount of $798.99 for the non-payment of medical
health insurance premiums.
The agency investigated the complaint and thereafter referred the matter
to an Administrative Judge (AJ), pursuant to complainant's request for
a hearing. Without holding a hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding
no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The AJ determined
that complainant has not presented evidence to establish that anyone
owing a similar debt was not subjected to agency efforts to collect
the debt. With regard to complainant's claim of reprisal, the AJ found
that complainant established a prima facie case. The AJ found that the
agency set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.
The AJ noted that the agency stated that an administrative error was
the reason for the delay in collecting complainant's share of his
health insurance premiums. The agency stated that the administrative
error resulted from complainant's transfer from the Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs (OWCP) rolls to the agency's payrolls. The AJ
found that there is no evidence that the agency's stated reason was a
pretext for unlawful discrimination. On February 6, 2004, the agency
issued a final action adopting the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant argues that he took every step available to him to
reinstate his medical insurance immediately when he became aware there
were no deductions being taken out of his salary. Complainant requests
a waiver of the entire debt since he had no control and the agency
acknowledged that an administrative error occurred.
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.
The order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step
normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case,
need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue,
the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the
McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions
were motivated by discrimination. United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900150 (June 28, 1990).
With respect to the agency's efforts to collect from complainant his
share of past medical health insurance premiums, we shall assume arguendo
that complainant set forth a prima facie case under the alleged bases.
The agency stated that it sought to collect $798.99 from complainant due
to his non-payment of past medical health insurance premiums. The agency
explained that it had previously failed to deduct complainant's portion
of his medical health insurance premiums due to an administrative
error arising from complainant's transfer from the OWCP rolls to the
agency's payroll. We find that the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the notices of indebtedness that were sent
to complainant. Complainant has not established that the indebtedness
he incurred was the result of anything other than an administrative
error precipitated by his transfer from the OWCP rolls to the agency's
payroll. Complainant has also failed to establish that the agency
acted in a discriminatory fashion by attempting to collect the debt.
We find that complainant has not established that the agency's stated
reason was pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivation. We do not
address in this decision whether complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability.
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final
action finding no discrimination as a preponderance of the record evidence
does not establish that 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
June 9, 2004
__________________
Date