01A21708
02-04-2003
William T. Briggs, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area) Agency.
William T. Briggs v. United States Postal Service
01A21708
February 4, 2003
.
William T. Briggs,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A21708
Agency No. 1C-431-0033-99
Hearing No. 220-AO-5140X
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 Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Distribution Clerk at the
agency's Processing and Distribution Center, Columbus, Ohio facility,
filed a formal EEO complaint on August 5, 1999, alleging that the agency
had discriminated against him on the basis of disability (lower back,
shoulder) when he was denied overtime from February to April 1999.<1>
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 disability discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant
failed to demonstrate that his impairments substantially limited him in
a major life activity. According to the AJ, the record indicated that
complainant was in a limited duty assignment due to a restriction on
lifting between 10 and 20 pounds and a restriction on prolonged sitting.
The AJ concluded that there was no evidence complainant was regarded
as disabled. Even assuming that complainant was a qualified individual
with a disability, the AJ found that complainant failed to demonstrate
he was treated differently than similarly situated employees who were
not disabled. In addition, the AJ found there was no genuine dispute
of material fact that there were legitimate non-discriminatory reasons
why complainant did not work overtime during the time in question -
namely, that he did not sign the overtime desired list. In addition,
the AJ found that the agency followed the provisions of its National
Agreement for assigning overtime to its employees and that complainant's
impairment was not a factor in the agency's decisions.
The agency's final order implemented the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant restates that the agency's records contain a
notation that he is disabled and as such he has been regarded as disabled
for many years since his on-the-job injury in 1973. In response, the
agency restates the position it took in its FAD, and requests that we
affirm its final order.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that granting
summary judgment was appropriate, as the record contains no genuine
dispute of material fact. 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.
We will assume for purposes of our analysis, that complainant is a
qualified individual with a disability and is entitled to protection under
the Rehabilitation Act. The record reflected that the agency's National
Agreement provided that overtime would be granted on a voluntary basis
to those employees who signed the overtime desired list. In the event
there were not enough volunteers in a particular unit, there were set
procedures for filling the agency's requirements for overtime workers on a
mandatory basis. Complainant contended he was not aware of the agency's
procedures but he did not offer evidence to dispute that the overtime
desired list was used to assign overtime. Moreover, complainant did
not dispute that he did not sign the overtime desired list during the
time in question and that once he did sign the list in a later period,
he was granted overtime. Although complainant contended that he was
granted overtime even when he did not sign the list, the evidence was
undisputed that this was done under the agency's alternative procedures
described above.
Complainant contended that other employees were treated more favorably,
but the evidence demonstrated that the comparison employees he cited
were all within his protected group and were granted overtime under
the procedures described herein. Therefore, there was no competent
evidence tending to support complainant's claim that the agency was
motivated by discriminatory animus based on complainant's disability.
For these reasons, we find that the AJ's decision granting summary
judgment was appropriate.
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
February 4, 2003
__________________
Date
1Complainant averred in an affidavit that he
was denied a requested reasonable accommodation for his back condition,
but he did not raise the issue with the EEO counselor, nor did he state
the claim in his complaint. He did not raise the issue on appeal and
as such, it will not be addressed in this decision.