0120100543
08-26-2011
Trina M. Johnson, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Trina M. Johnson,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100543
Hearing No. 570-2009-00636X
Agency No. 4K-200-0178-08
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated October
9, 2009, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint.1
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, dated December 8, 2008, Complainant, a Machine
Operator-A, PS-07, Mail Equipment Shops, Washington, DC, alleged
discrimination based on race (African American), sex (female), and age
(over 40) when: on July 9, 2008, she was denied the opportunity to enroll
in the Industrial Electrical System (IES) course in Norman, Oklahoma;
and on July 13, 2008, her job description was changed. Upon completion
of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On September 17, 2009, the AJ
issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision.
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.
The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,
as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ
determined that, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a
prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. Specifically,
Complainant’s manager indicated that she initially agreed to send
Complainant to the IES course after two officials recommended the
same. However, when she mentioned the same to an identified Labor
Relations/Human Resources Specialist, the Specialist expressed her
concerns about Complainant’s eligibility due to her job description and
classification as she was a Machine Operator. Thus, the manager set up
a meeting with six other managerial officials, including Complainant’s
immediate supervisor, to review Complainant’s position description
and the training course information. After the meeting, the manager
was advised and decided not to send Complainant to the training at issue
since it was not related to Complainant’s job. The AJ noted that if
the training was offered to Complainant, i.e., a non-Maintenance Craft
employee, paid for by the Agency and taken while the employee was on
the clock, the union had grounds for objections and could argue that the
Agency was giving those employees unfair advantage over other employees.
The manager and Complainant’s supervisor stated that Complainant’s
job description was not changed as she claimed.
After a review of the record, we agree with the AJ that Complainant failed
to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the
alleged incidents. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant has
failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination
as she alleged.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final order is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
8/26/11
__________________
Date
1 Despite the Agency’s contentions on appeal, we find that
Complainant’s appeal filed on November 15, 2009, was timely since the
deadline for filing her appeal was extended until the next business day,
i.e., November 16, 2009, because the 30-day time limit fell on Saturday,
November 14, 2009. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(d).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120100543
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120100543