01A33676_r
09-10-2003
Robin D. Miller-Adams, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robin D. Miller-Adams v. United States Postal Service
01A33676
September 10, 2003
.
Robin D. Miller-Adams<1>,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A33676
Agency No. 4K-211-0040-02
Hearing No. 120-2002-01533X
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.
The record reveals that complainant, a Tour 3 Automation Expediter, PS-06,
at the agency's Incoming Mail Facility in Linthicum, Maryland, filed a
formal EEO complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that the agency had
discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex
(female), and color (unspecified) when on December 7, 2001, she received
a Letter of Warning for failure to follow instructions.<2>
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 complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant
failed to demonstrate that a named similarly situated employee not in
complainant's protected class was treated differently when she did not
receive a Letter of Warning for failing to follow instructions. The AJ
further found that assuming arguendo that complainant established a prima
facie case of race discrimination, complainant failed to present any
evidence which demonstrated that the agency's articulated reason for its
action was a pretext for discrimination. The AJ found that on December 6,
2002, complainant's supervisor gave a �service talk� to all employees,
including complainant, instructing them not to eat and drink on the work
floor. The AJ found that the next day, December 7, 2002, complainant's
supervisor issued complainant a Letter of Warning for violating the
agency's no food and drink policy by carrying a cup of ice water on the
work floor. Further, the AJ found that the supervisor did not issue a
named employee a Letter of Warning because the supervisor did not see
the employee carrying a beverage on the work floor in violation of the
agency's no food or drink policy.<3>
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision.
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, 322-323 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equipment Corporation, 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is
�material� if it has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.
If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary
judgment is not appropriate.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant
of summary judgment 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, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motived by discriminatory animus toward
complainant's protected class.
Accordingly, the agency's final action implementing the AJ's decision
was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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
September 10, 2003
__________________
Date
1The record reveals that during the relevant period complainant changed
her last name from
"Adams" to "Miller-Adams.�
2The record reveals that in her formal complaint, complainant raised a
second claim: that she was discriminated against on the bases of race,
sex and color when on December 6, 2001, she was called into the office
and given a direct order not to bring a chair in to the work station. In
its Memorandum of Law in Support of Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss and
Motion for Decision Without a Hearing, the agency determined that the only
issue before the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) is the Letter of Warning
claim as identified by complainant in her Pre-Hearing Statement. The
record further reveals in his Pre-hearing Memorandum and Order, the AJ
concluded that the parties agreed that the issue in the instant case
was whether complainant was discriminated against, solely on the basis
of race, when she was disciplined for bringing a drink on the workroom
floor. The Commission acknowledges that complainant initially raised
sex and color as bases; however, the record indicates that complainant
solely raised the basis of race before the AJ.
3The record reveals that complainant filed a grievance concerning her
Letter of Warning. The record further reveals that management and the
union came to an agreement that complainant's Letter of Warning would
be removed from her personnel file after 60 days.