01a44629
10-26-2004
Mary Collins, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mary Collins v. United States Postal Service
01A44629
October 26, 2004
.
Mary Collins,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44629
Agency No. 1-H-341-0016-03
Hearing No. 150-2004-00250X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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., and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms
the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Clerk at the agency's Miami,
Florida facility, filed a formal EEO complaint on July 22, 2003,
alleging that the agency had discriminated against her on the bases of
race (African-American), sex (female), and disability (carpal tunnel
syndrome) when two of her requests for vacation were denied in March 2003.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable
to complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there
were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ found
that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race, sex,
or disability discrimination as she failed to show that any similarly
situated employees, outside her protected classes, were treated more
favorably under similar circumstances. The AJ also found that the
agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying
complainant's requests. Specifically, that complainant's requests were
for vacation days outside of the vacation choice period for her craft, and
that employees outside her protected classes also had their requests for
non-choice vacation denied.<1> The AJ found that complainant failed to
proffer any evidence to show that the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus toward her race, sex, or disability. Accordingly,
the AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that she was subjected to discrimination.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant makes
no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we affirm
its final order.
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 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, as no genuine dispute of material fact
exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
Further, we find that complainant failed to present any evidence from
which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that any of the agency's
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex,
race, or disability. Therefore, we affirm the FAD.
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
October 26, 2004
__________________
Date
1 The record reflects that pursuant to an agency memorandum, dated
January 23, 2003, the allowable choice vacation period for employees in
the Clerk craft was March 29, 2003 through October 31, 2003. The record
further reflects that complainant's vacation requests, which were denied
by the agency, were for November 24 through 29, 2003 and December 24,
2003 through January 3, 2004. (Report of Investigation, Exhibit 2).