Dated: February 19, 1999
Case No.: 1998-WPC-8
File No.: 1-0280-98-029

IN THE MATTER OF:

William Antoniac
    Complainant

    v.

United States Coast Guard Academy
    Respondent

   On December 28, 1998, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision in the above-captioned claim. On December 29, 1998, Complainant filed a Motion requesting that this Court provide Complainant an extension for forty-five (45) days to respond to Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision. On that same date, Respondent filed an objection to Complainant's request, arguing that a forty-five day extension would be excessive and unnecessary under these circumstances. On December 30, 1998, this Judge Granted Complainant's extension request, and Ordered Complainant to file his opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision prior to the close of business on February 12, 1999. Complainant filed his Brief in Opposition to Respondent's Motion on February 12, 1999. In support of his Opposition, Complainant has submitted an affidavit of the Complainant regarding the issues disputed.

   The standard for granting summary decision is set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 18.40(d). This section, which is derived from Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, permits an Administrative Law Judge to recommend summary decision for either party where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." 29 C.F.R. § 18.40(d). The non-moving party must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Gillilian v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 91-ERA-31 (Sec'y Aug. 28, 1995) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986)). The determination of whether a genuine issue of material fact exists must be made viewing all the evidence and factual inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Id. (citing OFCCP v. CSX Transp., Inc., 88-OFC-24 (Asst. Sec'y Oct. 13, 1994)).

   This Judge, acknowledging that summary decision is rarely granted, has applied this standard to the case at hand and concludes that Respondent's Motion must be DENIED, as I find sufficient factual disputes exist which warrant the holding of a hearing on this claim.

   In the present case, Respondent argues that Summary Decision is warranted on several of the issues raised by the Complainant. Respondent provides a comprehensive and detailed review of the thirty-three allegations of retaliation and discrimination raised in the Complaint. Respondent then individually argues that none of the allegations involve a factual dispute or any evidence of retaliation. In support of its Motion, Respondent submits several affidavits of individuals directly involved in the circumstances surrounding this claim, disputing the allegations and facts presented in the complaint, and articulating a lack of discriminatory intent or action on the part of Respondent. Finally, Respondent cites to the Complainant's own deposition testimony to establish that no material factual disputes exist.

   Complainant, however, argues that a valid claim has been filed with regard to the issues in dispute, and alleges that sufficient factual allegations exist which support and establish the need for a hearing. In support of his argument, Complainant has filed an affidavit which addresses each of the contentions specifically raised by Respondent, often conflicting directly with the arguments and affidavits submitted by Respondent.

   This Administrative Law Judge, upon review of the arguments of parties and all of the supporting affidavits, finds and concludes that the facts present genuine issues of material fact. Under the proper standard for a motion for summary decision, I must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the Complainant. Thus, for the purpose of this Order, and this Order only, I must take all disputes in testimony in the light most favorable to the Complainant. Based upon the allegations in the Complaint, as supported by both the deposition and affidavit of the Complainant, I find that a valid claim exists as to all of the allegations challenged by Respondent. I conclude that Complainant has persuasively raised several issues of material fact which can only be resolved at a trial of these allegations, at which trial both parties will have the opportunity to present their respective cases-in-chief. Accordingly, I hereby DENY Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgement.

   This matter will be rescheduled for hearing by subsequent Order of this Court.

       DAVID W. DI NARDI
       Administrative Law Judge

Boston, Massachusetts
DWD:pte