a/k/a Alena C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 9, 2018

0120162847 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 9, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

a/k/a
Alena C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162847

Hearing No. 510-2014-00257X

Agency No. 1G-328-0016-13

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) from the Agency’s final order dated August 4, 2016, finding no discrimination
regarding her complaint alleging 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. For the following reasons,
we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Maintenance Mechanic, PS-07, at Orlando Annex in Orlando, Florida. The record indicates
that on November 26, 2013, Complainant filed her complaint alleging discrimination based on
sex (female) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on August 14, 2013, she was notified
that she had not qualified for a Maintenance Mechanic, PS-09 level position and would have to
go back to a Maintenance Mechanic, PS-07 position.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120162847

2
Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before
an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 22, 2016,
the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s
final order implemented the AJ’s decision.

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. In this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a
hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists.

In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of
discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the alleged incident. The record indicates that on August 14, 2012, the Agency
posted a notice of intent to fill a vacant duty assignment for Maintenance Mechanic, PS-09
(MPE9) position at issue. Therein, it indicated that candidates must successfully complete
“AFSM100 MPE Maintenance” course or “APPS Mechanical System” course within one year of
promotion to the subject position.

Complainant, who was a Maintenance Mechanic, PS-07 (MM7), applied and was the successful
bidder for the MPE9 position on August 25, 2012. On August 9, 2013, the National Center for
Employee Development (NCED) instructor informed Complainant that she did not pass the
“APPS Mechanical System” course. Complainant acknowledged that she received the score of
65 which was below the passing score of 70 for the course at issue. On September 4, 2013,
Complainant’s supervisor (S1) notified Complainant that she would need to return to her original
MM7 position since she did not pass the APPS Mechanical System course.

Complainant claimed that four identified employees were treated better than she was since they
were not required to pass the “APPS Mechanical System” course as she was. S1 indicated that
he had either no knowledge of those employees’ promotion and/or they were not supervised by
S1. Complainant’s second level supervisor (S2), who came on board in Complainant’s facility
on October 20, 2012, indicated that he had no knowledge of those employees’ promotions except
0120162847

3
one employee who two years ago qualified for MPE9 position without taking a qualifying course
due to the NCED being downsized and cancelling the courses offered.

The AJ noted that despite Complainant’s claim that S2 was responsible for the alleged incident,
S2 had no involvement regarding a number of employees’ promotion to MPE9 positions since
those positions occurred prior to October 20, 2012. Furthermore, the AJ stated that for those
employees who were promoted to the MPE9 position shortly before and after S2’s October 20,
2012 arrival, one withdrew from the process and the others all passed the relevant training course
within a year of their promotion as required, except Complainant. Complainant does not dispute
this.

Upon review, we agree with the AJ that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. After a review of the record, we find that Complainant
failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in her protected groups who
were treated differently under similar circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we find that
Complainant has failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she
alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)

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. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405;
0120162847

4
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110),
at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may
request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or
costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may
request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of
court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission.

0120162847

5
The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not
alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right
to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

March 9, 2018
Date