0120072108
08-05-2009
Eddie Mills, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eddie Mills,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072108
Hearing No. 250-2005-000314X
Agency No. 1H-372-0007-01
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated February
22, 2007, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. In his
complaint, dated May 18, 2001, complainant, an equipment operator in
the agency's Mail Handler craft, alleged discrimination based on race
(African American), color (black), sex (male), disability (sinusitis),
and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on March 20, 2001, he was
denied work within his medical restrictions.
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On February
8, 2007, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The agency's final action 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.
The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,
as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ
determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a
prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incident. The AJ noted that on
February 1, 2001, complainant was previously placed on limited duty at the
agency's Chattanooga P&DC and he was given chores in an air conditioned
office as result of restrictions limiting his access to extreme hot or
cold temperatures, high humidity, dust or fumes. Thereafter, on March 6,
2001, based on OWCP's determination, complainant was placed on light duty.
The AJ noted that while complainant was on limited duty, the agency
had duty to create a job for complainant and the agency did so; but,
when complainant was on light duty, the agency had no duty to create a
job but instead only determine whether any jobs were available within
complainant's limitations.
At the time of alleged incident, on March 20, 2001, the agency's light
duty committee found there was no work available within complainant's
restrictions. Specifically, the agency, undisputed by complainant,
stated that complainant was not able to work on the workroom floor due
to the dust; he could only work in a dust/mold free environment. The AJ
stated that complainant failed to identify any persons who performed
work identical to his who received different treatment.
After a review of the record, we agree with the AJ that complainant
failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
the alleged incident. Assuming (without deciding) that complainant
was an individual with a disability, we also find that complainant
failed to show that he was denied a reasonable accommodation or that
any agency actions were motivated by discrimination. Complainant does
not allege that he was required to perform his duties beyond his medical
restrictions nor does he show that there was any vacant funded position
that met his medical restrictions.
Accordingly, the agency's final action is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
8/5/09
__________________
Date
2
0120072108
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013