01a41192
04-12-2005
Deborah A. Coyle, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Deborah A. Coyle v. United States Postal Service
01A41192
April 12, 2005
.
Deborah A. Coyle,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A41192
Agency No. 4B-018-0077-01
Hearing No. 160-A3-08253X
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal from an agency's November 6, 2003
notice of final action concerning her 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.
Complainant filed a formal complaint of discrimination dated July 25,
2001, which was subsequently amended, alleging that she was subjected
to discrimination on the bases of disability and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when:
On June 11, 2001, (a) her request for sick leave for June 8, 2001, was
denied, and changed to emergency annual leave; and (b) she was instructed
to advise her supervisor when she leaves her work area.
She was required to work beyond her medical limitations.
On December 31, 2001, her request for one hour of annual leave to leave
early was denied.
On December 3, 2001, she was harassed by her supervisor concerning a
change of schedule she worked on December 1, 2001.
On April 3, 2002, she was presented with a Rehabilitation job offer that
downgraded her level from 06 to 05.
Following the completion of the investigation of her complaint,
complainant requested a hearing on the complaint before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The record indicates that both parties
responded to the AJ's Notice of Intent to Issue a Decision Without a
Hearing. Based on the parties' responses, the AJ issued a decision, dated
October 30, 2003, without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The agency's decision fully implemented the AJ's decision.
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.
Upon review, the Commission finds, assuming arguendo that complainant
has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the agency has
articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
With regard to claim (1)(a), the record indicates that when complainant
was mistakenly granted annual and not sick leave, the correction was
made restoring annual leave and charging her sick leave. With regard to
claim (1)(b), when complainant abandoned her post in the middle of her
tour, in a non-emergency situation, without first obtaining permission,
her supervisor informed her of appropriate procedure when requesting
sick leave and requested that she follow that procedure. Furthermore,
complainant was not disciplined when she left her post prior to obtaining
the requisite permission of the appropriate supervisor.
With regard to claim (2), the agency, immediately upon learning that
complainant was experiencing discomfort, told her not to perform those
duties. Complainant indicated that she was relieved from the data entry
duty when the agency found out about her workers' compensation claim in
late May 2001. Complainant also indicated that she did not request that
data entry duty be removed from her regular job duties prior to that
time because she was afraid that she would lose her job. Therefore,
we find that complainant has failed to show that she was required to
work beyond her medical limitations.
With regard to claim (3), concerning complainant's request to leave work
early on New Year's Eve, the supervisor in charge at the relevant time,
mistakenly believing she could not approve the request, denied the
requested leave. The agency stated that its records showed that it,
over the time period in question, approved no fewer than 31 requests or
notifications of absence and 14 requests for temporary schedule change
for personal convenience for complainant. The agency also stated that
many of these requests were for changes lasting days and even weeks.
There is no indication that the denial of leave on this one instance
was motivated by discrimination or retaliation.
With regard to claim (4), the agency stated that complainant's supervisor
requested that complainant follow proper procedure when requesting
schedule change, i.e., informing complainant not to implement a schedule
change without first receiving permission to do so. The agency noted that
complainant was not disciplined when she did not follow that procedure.
With regard to claim (5), the record indicates that the job offer
accepted by complainant stated in error that the clerk position was
a level 6 position. The agency indicated that although the level of
position dropped to reflect her new job, complainant received a raise -
a saved rate that was over $300 higher than her previous, level 6, salary.
On appeal, complainant does not dispute the agency's arguments. In fact,
she states that �she has been very happy doing her current job under her
current supervisor.� Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant
has failed to show that the agency's articulated legitimate reasons were
a pretext.<1>
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of
all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is hereby
AFFIRMED because the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was
appropriate and 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
April 12, 2005
__________________
Date
1The Commission does not address in this
decision whether complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.