0120110418
02-29-2012
Sylvia Y. Grooms, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Sylvia Y. Grooms,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120110418
Hearing No. 430-2010-00135X
Agency No. 4K-230-0154-09
DECISION
On October 21, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s
September 23, 2010, final order concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination. For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Mail Distribution Facility
in Richmond, Virginia. On September 23, 2009, Complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on
the bases of her race (African-American), sex (female), color (brown),
and age (59 at the relevant time) when as a result of her June 10, 2009
arrest for grand larceny and embezzlement of Agency funds, management
placed her on emergency placement without pay, effective June 12, 2009.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
timely requested a hearing. The AJ found that, after viewing the evidence
in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a hearing was
appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on September 8, 2010, finding
no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant
reiterates her contention that the Agency subjected her to unlawful
discrimination and that similarly situated employees outside her protected
classes were treated more favorably under the same circumstances.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from an agency
decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b),
the Agency’s decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 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
102, 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, it is not appropriate for
an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. In the context of an
administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without
a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately
developed for summary disposition. Petty v. Defense Security Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
The Commission finds that a decision without a hearing was appropriate,
as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. To prevail in a disparate
treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a
prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse
employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576
(1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in where the
Agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its
conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,
519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256
(1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No,
05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).
We concur with the AJ’s determination that the Agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions that Complainant
failed to show were pretextual. The record shows that on June 10,
2009, Complainant was arrested and charged with grand larceny and
embezzlement of union funds. Agency management officials were informed of
Complainant’s arrest and on June 12, 2009, in accordance with Agency
policy, Complainant was immediately placed in emergency placement,
off-duty status pending the outcome of the case. The record further
shows that all charges against Complainant were subsequently dismissed
and her criminal record expunged, and that Complainant returned to her
Mail Processing Clerk position on October 14, 2009. We find that
Complainant has proffered no evidence to show that the Agency’s
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward her protected
classes. In so finding, we note that the Commission has held that “a
mistaken, good faith belief in the rationale for a particular action is
not pretextual.” Foley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01924615
(Mar. 26, 1993). Here, although Complainant was later exonerated, at the
time the Agency placed her in emergency placement off-duty status, she had
been arrested and charged with felony offenses and management officials
were acting in accordance with Agency policy. Further, Complainant has
not shown that any other employees facing similar charges were treated
more favorably. Accordingly, we concur with the AJ’s finding of no
discrimination.
CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to
Complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further
find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb
the AJ’s decision and 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
February 29, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120110418
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120110418