01a42114
06-25-2004
Ronald Alston, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ronald Alston v. United States Postal Service
01A42114
6/25/2004
.
Ronald Alston,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42114
Agency No. 1K-201-0108-00
Hearing No. 100-A2-7719X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his 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. , 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.
The record reveals that complainant, a Laborer at the agency's
D.C. Brentwood Road Facility, filed a formal EEO complaint,
alleging that the agency discriminated against him on the bases
of race (African-American), color (brown), sex (male), religion
(non-denomination), disability (mental stress/back injury),<1> and age
(D.O.B. 4/19/55) when he:
(1) was not selected for eight positions for which he claimed he was
qualified but not selected during the period between March 1999 and
September 2000;
(2) was not selected for the position he applied for in September
2000 under Vacancy Announcement No. 56-00; and
was issued a notice of removal by [a named supervisor].
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 discrimination. Regarding complainant's removal the
AJ found that complainant failed to demonstrate that similarly situated
employees not in complainant's protected classes were treated differently
under similar circumstances. Regarding claim (1), the AJ stated that
complainant failed to make timely EEO Counselor contact. Moreover,
the AJ concluded that complainant failed to rebut any of the agency's
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
The agency's final order dated January 24, 2004, 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, 322-23 (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, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green. 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a
prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.
Id. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978).
The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met
its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade
the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted
on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant has
established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983
Claims (1)- (2) Non-selections
The record supports the AJ's determination that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for complainant's non-selections.
The record contains a copy of an affidavit from the selecting official
(SO) for the nine positions in question. Therein, the SO stated
that with each promotion �the person selected was better qualified in
experience and training [than complainant].� The SO further stated
that while complainant had �many years experience as a custodian, he
is also very limited in administrative experience and ability.� In
addition, the record contains an affidavit from the Chairperson (C1)
for many of the review panels of the promotions in question. Therein,
C1 states that complainant's �administrative skills are poor.�
The Commission finds that complainant has failed to present sufficient
evidence that the agency's articulated reasons for complainant's
non-selections were pretext.
Claim (3) Removal
The record supports the AJ's determination that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for complainant's removal.
Specifically, the record contains a notice of removal from complainant's
supervisor (S1) dated February 9, 2001. Therein, S1 states that
complainant is being removed due to improper conduct. S1 further
states that the improper conduct charge is based upon the findings of
an investigation conducted by the Postal Inspection Service regarding
complainant's involvement in a workplace incident on June 17, 2000. The
record also contains a copy of a Investigative Memorandum (IM) from a
Postal Inspector dated January 8, 2001. Therein, the Postal Inspector
sets forth the findings of an investigation conducted by the Postal
Inspection Service regarding a workplace incident on June 17, 2000.
The IM details numerous inconsistencies with complainant's account of
his actions regarding the workplace incident at issue. The Commission
finds that complainant has failed to present sufficient evidence that
the agency's articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for complainant's
removal were pretext.
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 motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes.
Accordingly, the agency's final order implementing the AJ's decision is
hereby AFFIRMED.<2>
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 (OF) 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
6/25/2004
Date
1For purposes of analysis we presume, without finding, that complainant
is an individual with a disability.
2Because we affirm the agency's final order finding no discrimination
for the reasons stated herein, we find it unnecessary to address the
AJ's alternate disposition of claim (1).