0120122699
12-07-2012
Phillip Wright, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Phillip Wright,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120122699
Hearing No. 520-2010-00456X
Agency No. 4B-110-0090-10
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's May 17, 2012 final action concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency's Brownsville Post Office in Brooklyn, New York.
On May 6, 2010, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of race (African-American) when:
on April 1, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 26, 2010 and May 1, 2010, he was denied overtime.
Following the investigation of the instant formal complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On April 17, 2012, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
In her decision, the AJ found no discrimination. The AJ found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because Complainant did not demonstrate that he was treated differently from other similar situated employees under similar circumstances. The AJ nevertheless found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant did not show were a pretext. Specifically, the AJ noted that during the relevant period the overtime hours Complainant worked were comparable to those of his comparators included on the Overtime Desired list. The AJ noted that during the time period of April 1, 2010 through May 7, 2010, Complainant worked 18 hours of overtime; one comparator worked 17 hours of overtime; and another comparator worked 14 hours of overtime.
The AJ noted that the Manager, Customer Services (Manager) administers overtime for the Brownsville Post Office. The Manager stated that if employees desired to work overtime during the second quarter, employees must place his or her name on the Overtime Desired List and that management is required to provide equitable opportunities for overtime among those employees who have placed their name on the overtime desired list.
Further, the Manager stated that Complainant "may have been denied overtime on the dates listed for several reasons. However, at the end of a quarter and the overtime has to be equitable. Complainant may not have been granted on the days listed, but he will receiv[e] equitable overtime at the end of the quarter (April through June)." The Manager further stated that he met with Complainant "when he makes a request [for] overtime and his volume does not justify. On some days the overtime is not granted for Complainant because I have an employee on under time or I have a PTF to carry the mail on straight time." The Manager stated that he relied on Article 8 of the National Agreement between the Agency and the union in which states that "management can pay an employee (PTF/TE) straight time in place of overtime." Moreover, the Manager stated that he did not discriminate against Complainant based on his race.
Complainant, on appeal, argued that the AJ erred in issuing a summary judgment because there are material facts at issue. For instance, Complainant states that he was upset that the AJ used his "witness" [comparator] as a reason for finding no discrimination. Complainant asserts further that he does not understand why the AJ "put my witness as if I was complaining on my witnesses. [Manager] was going after all of my witnesses, he didn't want to give us overtime especially me."
Complainant further argued that he was treated unfairly by the Manager because he "took overtime from me and paid [two named comparators] overtime without them staying at work...I have to work my full hours of overtime and [comparator employees] can fill out a form 1260 and go home and get paid an extra 1 or 2 hours of overtime."
The instant appeal followed.
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, 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.
Complainant has not provided any persuasive arguments regarding the propriety of the AJ's finding of no discrimination. We determine that the AJ's findings of fact are supported by the substantial evidence in the record and that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that Complainant did not present evidence that any of the Agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward Complainant's race. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision.
The Agency's final action implementing the AJ's decision finding no discrimination 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
December 7, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120122699
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120122699
6
0120122699