01A20583_r
06-20-2002
Eugene M. Braganza, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Eugene M. Braganza v. United States Postal Service
01A20583
June 20, 2002
.
Eugene M. Braganza,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A20583
Agency No. 4-K-220-0071-00
Hearing No. 100-A1-7548X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.405, the Commission accepts the complainant's
appeal from the agency's final action in the above-entitled matter.
Complainant filed a complaint in which he claimed that the agency
discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin (Asian
Indian) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e, et seq., when on April 18, 2000, he was
placed in an emergency off-duty status based on improper conduct for
failing to observe safety rules and regulations.
The agency investigated the complaint and thereafter referred the
matter to an Administrative Judge (AJ), who issued a decision finding
no discrimination without holding a hearing. The agency issued a final
action implementing the AJ's decision. It is from this final action
that complainant now appeals.
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.
Complainant must initially 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 Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The burden then shifts to
the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is
pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133
(2000).
Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the
particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. Where
employment terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits are at issue,
complainant may establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he belongs to a statutorily protected class, and that he was treated
differently than employees outside of his protected group with respect to
those terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits. See Orr v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, EEOC Request No. 05930311 (March 11, 1994); Thompkins
v. Morris Brown College, 752 F.2d 558, 562 n. 7 (11th Cir. 1985).
With regard to the instant matter, we find that complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Complainant has not
presented any evidence to show that similarly situated employees outside
of his protected class were treated more favorably. The individual
involved with complainant in the altercation at issue received the same
form of discipline. Two other individuals who engaged in a separate
physical altercation also were placed in an emergency off-duty status.
Assuming arguendo, that complainant had established a prima facie case,
we find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its placement of complainant in an emergency off-duty status.
The agency stated that complainant and another employee were involved in
a physical altercation. We find that complainant has not produced any
evidence to show that the agency's purported reason for its placement
of him in an emergency off-duty status was pretextual.
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 action
finding no discrimination, because the Administrative Judge'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
June 20, 2002
__________________
Date