01995397
05-05-2000
Robert J. Maietta, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robert J. Maietta, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01995397
v. ) Agency No. 1A-102-1034-96
) Hearing No. 160-98-8160X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of
unlawful retaliation based on prior EEO activity and discrimination based
on race (White), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant alleges he
was subjected to retaliation and discrimination on May 7, 1996, when:
(1) his request for a copy of his medical unit file was denied; and (2) he
became aware that "non-medical" information had been placed in his medical
file. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the FAD is AFFIRMED AS CLARIFIED.
The record reveals that complainant is employed as a Distribution Clerk
at the agency's Westchester P & D Center in White Plains, New York.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on June 11, 1996.
The agency initially dismissed part of the complaint, but the Commission
vacated the dismissal and order the agency to process the remanded claim
together with the accepted claim. See Maietta v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965622 (June 4, 1997). At the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ).
On June 2, 1999, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) without a
hearing, finding no retaliation or discrimination, and mistakenly stating
that neither party had responded to the AJ's April 13, 1999 notice of
intent to issue findings and conclusions without a hearing. On June 7,
1999, the AJ issued an amended RD, acknowledging that complainant's
submission had in fact been timely received, and finding that the
submission, duly considered, did not alter the AJ's original findings
and conclusions.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination because he failed to demonstrate that similarly
situated employees not in his protected classes were treated differently
under similar circumstances with respect to access to medical unit
files or the placement of non-medical information in medical unit files.
The AJ concluded that complainant had established a prima facie case of
retaliation, because the agency officials at issue appear to have been
aware of complainant's prior EEO activity. However, the AJ further
concluded that the agency had proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions, namely, that (1) complainant was not denied
access to his medical unit file but rather a properly executed release
form was required in order to permit release of the file to his
representative, and (2) the alleged non-medical information at issue
was deemed relevant to his worker's compensation claim by the agency
officials who submitted the information because it addressed complainant's
credibility regarding the nature and extent of his injury.<2> The AJ
concluded that complainant had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence that the agency's proffered reasons for its actions were
pretextual and that the real reason was retaliation or discrimination.
The agency, having issued a FAD on June 7, 1999 adopting the original
RD, proceeded to issue an amended FAD on June 10, 1999, adopting the
amended RD.
On appeal, complainant contends, among other things, that the AJ erred
in issuing a decision without a hearing because there existed a dispute
between the parties regarding whether the agency actions at issue caused
harm to complainant, and because of the error in the AJ's original RD.
In response, the agency requests that we affirm the FAD, noting that
the AJ corrected any error by considering complainant's submission and
thereafter issuing an amended RD.<3>
Based on a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ did not err
in proceeding without a hearing. 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). Applying this
standard to the instant case, we find that the AJ correctly concluded that
a decision could be issued without a hearing. Complainant's contention
on appeal that a hearing was required because the parties dispute
whether the actions at issue harmed him is without merit. Based on the
affidavits and documents contained in the Record of Investigation (ROI),
there exists no dispute between the parties regarding the material facts
on which complainant's claim is predicated, i.e. the placement of the
documents at issue in complainant's file, the content of the documents,
the agency's communications to complainant's representatives regarding
requirements for the release of records, the absence of any comparator
employees, and so on. See, e.g., ROI Affidavits C and E; Exhibit 8.
Accordingly, the AJ properly proceeded without a hearing.
Proceeding to the merits of the case, we note at the outset that the
RD incorrectly stated that in order to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination, a complainant must identify similarly situated
individuals outside his protected class who were treated more favorably.
This is only one means by which a complainant may establish a prima
facie case of discrimination. While comparative evidence is usually
used to establish disparate treatment, complainant need only set forth
some evidence of acts from which, if otherwise unexplained, an inference
of discrimination can be drawn. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
Nonetheless, after a careful review of the record and applying the
proper standard, we find that the AJ did not err in concluding that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination,
because complainant did not present any evidence which, if otherwise
unexplained, would permit an inference of race discrimination. Moreover,
even assuming arguendo that complainant did present a prima facie case
of race discrimination, he has failed to meet his ultimate burden of
proof to establish that, more likely than not, the agency's actions were
motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race. Similarly,
complainant has failed to establish that, more likely than not, the
agency's actions were motivated by reprisal for his prior EEO activity.
We discern no basis to disturb the conclusion reached in the
AJ's RD. Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including
complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments
and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the FAD is
AFFIRMED AS CLARIFIED.
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:
May 5, 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:
Date
Equal Employment Assistant
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.
2The AJ also noted that the information was removed from his medical
unit file once he objected to it, and placed in his worker's compensation
file instead, but this was not dispositive of complainant's claim.
3The agency also notes that both the AJ and the supervisory AJ addressed
this matter in separate letters to complainant's counsel dated June 11,
1999, and June 14, 1999, in response to complainant's request that the
AJ recuse himself and that the matter be reassigned to another AJ for
a hearing.