01a04188
03-23-2001
William D. Jenkins, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
William D. Jenkins v. United States Postal Service
01A04188
March 23, 2001
.
William D. Jenkins,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A04188
Agency No. 1-D-401-0048-97
Hearing No. 240-99-5004X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
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.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant
alleges he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race
(African-American), color (Black), sex (male), and in reprisal (prior
EEO activity) when on June 27, 1997, his supervisor yelled at him,
threatened him with not being paid, requiring him to keep his time
card in the holder while other employees were not required to do so,
and forcing him to use leave in order to escape stress.
The record reveals that complainant, a Mail Processor at the agency's Main
Post Office in Louisville, Kentucky, filed a formal EEO complaint with
the agency on August 28, 1997, alleging that the agency had discriminated
against him as referenced above. 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.
Initially, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of a hostile work environment. In particular, the AJ noted that
complainant failed to show that the incidents were severe and pervasive
that it affected a term, condition or privilege of his employment.
The AJ held that the encounter on June 27, 1997, was too isolated to be
regarded as sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment.
Even assuming that the alleged events were raised pursuant to a disparate
treatment theory of discrimination, the AJ found that complainant failed
to present evidence to establish a prima facie case for he did not show
that he was aggrieved by the incidents of June 27, 1997. Furthermore,
in viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to complainant, the AJ
determined that complainant failed to show a nexus between the alleged
incidents and his race, color, sex, or prior EEO activity. Accordingly,
the AJ found that complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the agency subjected him to a hostile work environment
based on his race, color, sex, and/or prior EEO activity.
The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant states that the AJ never afforded him an opportunity to hear
his side of the story. The agency requests that we affirm its final
action.
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. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate
where the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive
law, no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if the
evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the
non-moving party. Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st
Cir. 1988). In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title
VII, summary judgment is appropriate if, after adequate investigation,
complainant has failed to establish the essential elements of his or
her case. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority, 839 F.2d 171, 173
(3d Cir. 1988). In determining whether to grant summary judgment,
the trier of fact's function is not to weigh the evidence and render a
determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to determine whether
there exists a genuine factual dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49.
After a careful review of the record, we find the AJ properly determined
that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case. We also
note that complainant failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that
there was a genuine issue still in dispute. Based on our review of the
record, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that
the AJ properly determined that summary judgment was appropriate in this
case.
Based on our careful de novo review of the entire record before us, the
Commission finds that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
We note that complainant failed to present evidence to establish that
the agency's actions were severe or pervasive to rise to the level of
harassment. Furthermore, we find that complainant did not establish
that any of the agency's actions were in retaliation for complainant's
prior EEO activity or were motivated by discriminatory animus toward
complainant's race, color, and/or sex. We discern no basis to disturb
the AJ's decision.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's
final action.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
March 23, 2001
__________________
Date