0120070098
08-14-2008
Sandra J. Workman-Stewart, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sandra J. Workman-Stewart,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070098
Hearing No. 220-2005-00240X
Agency No. 4C-440-0322-04
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's September 7, 2006 final
order concerning her 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. 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 Service at the agency's Brooklyn
Branch facility in Cleveland, Ohio. On February 4, 2005, complainant
filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on
the bases of race (African-American), religion (Apostolic Pentecostal),
and color (dark complexion). The agency accepted the following claims
for investigation.1
1. The agency failed to communicate with complainant regarding
'objective setting' for core requirements;
2. The agency failed to give complainant mid-year and end-of-year
evaluations; and
3. The agency issued complainant an improper score rating and pay.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested
a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case granted the agency's motion for
a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on
August 30, 2006.
In his decision, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of race, color or religious discrimination. Specifically,
complainant failed to identify any similarly situated employees, not in
her protected classes who were treated any better than she was. The AJ
noted that complainant did not establish that her supervisor was aware
of her religious beliefs. The AJ therefore found no discrimination on
any basis had occurred as alleged.
The agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the
AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to
discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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, issuing
a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context
of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the
record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding
a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling
is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without
a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed
material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and
(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.
According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary
judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the
administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount
of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision
without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that an
administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving
an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must
satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant
must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he or
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately
prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
In the instant case, we find the AJ properly found that the material
facts were not in dispute and that a decision without a hearing should
be issued. We find, as did the AJ, that complainant does not claim her
supervisor, S1, was aware of her religious beliefs. We therefore find
that complainant has not established a prima facie of discrimination
based on religion with respect to any of her claims.
Similarly, we note that complainant did not establish any connection
between her race or color and the alleged discriminatory acts. Assuming
for arguments' sake that complainant established a prima facie case of
race or color discrimination, we find the agency provided legitimate,
non-discriminatory explanations for its actions that complainant has not
shown to be pretext. Complainant has not shown that other employees
negotiated their performance goals. Complainant also not shown that
the ratings and score she received were improper. We concur with the AJ
that the evidence supports the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for the pay-for-performance raise that complainant received.
We find nothing in the record indicates that discrimination motivated
the agency's actions with respect to her core requirements or pay as
alleged.
Based on a thorough review of the record we AFFIRM the agency's final
decision, finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (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 (Z0408)
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
August 14, 2008
__________________
Date
1Complainant's complaint included an additional 13 claims. The agency
dismissed the additional claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)
(for failure to state a claim) and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) (for
untimely EEO Counselor contact). The agency's dismissals were upheld by
the Administrative Judge and complainant does not specifically address the
dismissed claims on appeal. We find no reason to disturb the dismissal
of these claims and find they were properly dismissed.
??
??
??
??
2
0120070098
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
5
0120070098