01a00472
03-30-2000
Judith Brining, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Judith Brining, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A00472
v. ) Agency No. HO-0145-97
) Hearing No. 270-99-9059X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of
unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of sex (Female) and
reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The appeal
is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant has established,
by preponderant evidence, that the agency discriminated against her on
the bases of sex and reprisal<2> when the District Manager (Manager)
became involved in her personal business in the workplace.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that complainant is an employee at an agency facility
in New Orleans, Louisiana. Complainant alleges that on May 16, 1997,
the Manager called her into his office and delivered some papers to her.
The papers were given to the Manager by complainant's ex-husband who is a
friend of the Manager. Complainant alleges that she felt intimidated by
the Manager's action and his friendship with her ex-husband. Believing
she was a victim of discrimination, complainant contacted the EEO office
and filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on August 18, 1997,
alleging that the agency had discriminated against her on the bases of
sex and reprisal.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ found that there were
no issues of material fact to be decided in this case and, therefore,
issued her recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based on
the written record.
In her Findings and Conclusions, the AJ determined that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of sex and reprisal discrimination because
she failed to demonstrate that there was any causal connection between
the alleged harassment and complainant's protected bases. In particular,
the AJ noted that complainant's claim was an objection to the Manager's
intrusion into her personal affairs, however, complainant failed to
provide any evidence that the intrusion was was connected to her sex
or in reprisal for her prior EEO activity. Accordingly, upon review of
the record in a light most favorable to complainant, the AJ found that
complainant failed to establish that the Manager discriminated against
her based on sex or in reprisal.
The agency's FAD implemented the AJ's recommended Findings and
Conclusions. The appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate
where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive
law, no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if the
evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the
non-moving party. Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st
Cir. 1988). In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title
VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation,
complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or
her case. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173
(3d Cir. 1988). In determining whether to grant summary judgment,
the trier of fact's function is not to weigh the evidence and render a
determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether
there exists a genuine factual dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
After a careful review of the record, we find the AJ properly determined
that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case.
Specifically, we find that complainant failed to set forth sufficient
facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. Moreover,
complainant failed to provide in this appeal any evidence or argument
that material issues are in dispute. Therefore, we concur in the AJ's
determination and find that summary judgment was appropriate in this
case.
Based on our careful de novo review of the entire record before us,
the Commission finds that the AJ's recommended findings and conclusions
properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We conclude that complainant failed to
establish by preponderant evidence that any of the agency's actions were
in retaliation for complainant's prior EEO activity or were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex. Accordingly, we discern
no basis to disturb the AJ's recommended findings and conclusions or
the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the agency's
FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
March 30, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in
the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where
applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,
may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2 The record indicates that complainant failed a prior EEO complaint
against the Manager in July 1996, Case No. 4G-700-1180-96.