0120100548
08-29-2011
Maria Holsinger, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.
Maria Holsinger,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100548
Hearing No. 551-2009-00098X
Agency No. 4E-990-0011-08
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated October
15, 2009, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint.
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, dated March 27, 2008, Complainant, an Electronic
Technician (ET) at the Agency’s Boise Processing and Distribution
Center (P&DC), Boise, Idaho, alleged discrimination based on sex
(female) and disability when she was required to take a downgrade
in order to transfer to Boise in 2008, which set her salary lower
than promised. Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint,
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
On October 5, 2009, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing,
finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the
AJ’s decision.
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. 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 July 26, 2007, Complainant requested a transfer to the Boise P&DC
as an ET due to her mother’s ill health and the need to live in a
drier climate, such as in Boise. Thereafter, Complainant contacted the
Boise Manager who advised her to come to Boise by taking a downgrade
to a Custodian position which was the only open position at that time.
The Boise Manager also told her that he expected two new ET positions
to be created in October or November 2007. During that conversation,
Complainant was also informed that if she was not “in house” by the
time the ET positions were posted, he could not guarantee she would
get an ET position because there were two people ahead of her on the
transfer list. Complainant does not dispute this. The Boise Manager
stated that he never promised Complainant a particular salary (e.g.,
saved grade or a specified step).
Thereafter, after speaking with several union officials to determine how
a downgrade to a Custodian position would affect her financially, she made
a decision to transfer to Boise as a Custodian, grade level 3 step O from
her Ohio ET position, grade level 11 step L effective October 13, 2007.
The AJ noted that within a month, on November 10, 2007, Complainant was
promoted to a level 8 step J Mail Processing Equipment Mechanic position.
The AJ stated that on January 5, 2008, two ET positions became available,
Complainant was promoted to an ET position, grade level 11 step G, and
another employee, who was first on the transfer list, received another ET
position via a lateral reassignment. The AJ stated that if Complainant
was not “in house,” she would not have obtained the ET position on
January 5, 2008. Complainant does not dispute this on appeal. After a
review of the record, we agree with the AJ that Complainant failed to
rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged
incident. Complainant also failed to show that she was treated less
favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant has failed to show that
the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final order is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
8/29/11
__________________
Date
2
0120100548
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120100548