Teresa Florentino, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 21, 2007
0120071178 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 21, 2007)

0120071178

09-21-2007

Teresa Florentino, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Teresa Florentino,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120071178

Agency No. 1B012001106

Hearing No. 520200600373X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's December 14, 2006 final order concerning

her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment

discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

Complainant filed a formal complainant on April 24, 2006, claiming

discrimination based on disability (chronic cervical sprain/strain

(permanent)) when (a) she was not given overtime opportunities between

December 28, 2005, and March 7, 2006, based on disability; and (b)

she was sent home due to lack of work on February 10 and 15, 2006,

based on reprisal. Following an investigation, complainant requested

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The agency filed

a Motion seeking a decision without a hearing, and complainant did not

file a response.1 On November 21, 2006, the AJ issued his decision,

finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant, and

the agency adopted it.

At the time of these events, complainant worked as a Mail Handler on

Tour 3 in Springfield, MA. She was assigned to permanent light duty and

could not lift more than 20 pounds. She asserted that she was on the

overtime desire list (OTD) but was often bypassed. The agency stated

that complainant was on the OTD and afforded overtime work within her

restrictions as allowed by her seniority; however, overtime work was often

assigned by job function or job area, and when any of the job or work

required moving 70-pound sacks, pulling containers, or unloading trucks,

she could not be assigned. With regard to (b), the agency explained

that a light duty assignment was not a guarantee of a full day's work,

since work within her restrictions was not always available, and she

was sent home when no work existed. The managers denied knowledge of

her prior EEO activity.

The AJ found that complainant's evidence was incomplete to show that she

was a qualified individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act,

in that, she did not show that she was substantially limited in a major

life activity, characterizing her restrictions as a "moderate" limitation.

Assuming for the purposes of this decision only that complainant was able

to establish that she was an individual with a disability as defined

by the Rehabilitation Act, we find, like the AJ, that complainant did

not show that work was available within her restrictions during the

periods at issue that are set forth in claims (a) and (b). The agency

articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and

that complainant failed to demonstrate pretext.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, including arguments not

specifically addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final order, because

the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing

was appropriate,2 and a preponderance of the record evidence does not

establish that discrimination occurred.

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

_____9/21/07_____________

Date

1 In her appeal, complainant's representative maintained that he was

not notified that a response to the agency's motion was necessary.

At the outset, we note that the representative informed the AJ, upon

receipt of the agency's motion, that should the AJ consider granting

the request for summary judgment, "he would request the opportunity"

to respond. Although the representative was apparently waiting for some

further notification, we find that complainant's representative was on

notice that the AJ was considering the agency's motion and that he had

adequate opportunity to respond.

2 In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly

consider issuing a decision without 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); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July

11, 2003). Here, we find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision

without a hearing, as complainant failed to proffer sufficient evidence

to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists such that a

hearing on the merits is warranted.

??

??

??

??

2

0120071178

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120071178