0120070604
05-01-2009
Marshall T. Mason, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Marshall T. Mason,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070604
Hearing No. 340-2005-00516X
Agency No. 4F926016404
DECISION
On October 14, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final
order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section
501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is accepted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Supervisor, Customer Services at the agency's Pomona, California
Post Office. On September 20, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that he was discriminated against on the bases of his race
(African-American), disability (degenerative osteoarthritis in left
knee), and age (52 at the relevant time) when management denied his
request for a reasonable accommodation on March 30, 2004.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case found that, after
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to complainant,
a decision without a hearing was appropriate because there were no
genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision
without a hearing on August 18, 2006, finding no discrimination.
The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding
that complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination
as alleged. On appeal, complainant reiterates his contention that he
was subjected to unlawful discrimination.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD
issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the
agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may
properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11,
2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11,
2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision
without a hearing was appropriate, because no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. We note that the gravamen of complainant's complaint is
that he was informed by the agency's District Reasonable Accommodation
Committee (DRAC) on March 30, 2004,that his accommodation case was
"considered closed."
Under the Commission's regulations, the agency is required to make
reasonable accommodation to the known physical and mental limitations of
a qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that
accommodation would cause undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(o) and (p).
Assuming, without so finding, that complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act, we find that the agency
met its obligation to provide complainant with a reasonable accommodation.
The record clearly reflects that the agency continually engaged in the
interactive process with complainant from the time of his first request
for reasonable accommodation in 2001, providing complainant with positions
commensurate with his medical restrictions. (Report of Investigation,
Exhibit 3; 4; 6).
The record shows that, after meeting with the District Reasonable
Accommodation Committee on December 17, 2003, complainant was offered,
and accepted a temporary assignment which met his medical restrictions.
After this assignment ended, and complainant had used a certain amount
of medically-necessary sick leave, the agency offered complainant the
position of Supervisor, Customer Services. (R.O.I., Exhibit 14; 15).
The record reflects that the duties of the position were commensurate
with his medical restrictions. Id. Upon learning of this development,
the DRAC advised complainant that his case was closed. Accordingly,
we find that complainant has not established that the agency failed to
provide him with a reasonable accommodation, and we concur with the
AJ's finding of no discrimination. Additionally, we concur with the
AJ's finding that complainant proffered no evidence to show the agency's
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward his race or age.
We find that viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to
complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further
find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb
the AJ's decision and the agency's final order 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
May 1, 2009
Date
2
0120070604
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120070604
5
0120070604