Mr. Newell, was out of the office. The defendant has stated that it is the policy of the Post Office to avoid paying overtime to reduce its expenses. Def.’s Mot., Ex. E, Gaskins’ Decl. ¶ 8. Plaintiff does not refute this explanation in his opposition; he testified at his deposition that he did not “know about the Post Office[’s policies].” Def.’s Mot., Ex. A, Jones Dep. at 125. Plaintiff appears to argue that it would have made more sense, business wise, to grant him the overtime rather than give it to someone else. Id. However, “Title VII ... does not authorize a federal court to become ‘a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.’ ” Barbour v. Browner, 181 F.3d 1342, 1346 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citation omitted); see also Brodetski, 141 F.Supp.2d at 45 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, in light of plaintiffs failure
holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct recognizing that  the work to be completed in accordance with the time limits of section 6 is the work for which lien enforcement is sought holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work holding that plaintiff s  complaint concerning work inequity alleging that defendants required him to do the same work that employees did in higher positions was the level of personnel decisionmaking in which courts should not meddle