Carol P.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 6, 20180120160282 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 6, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Carol P.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120160282 Hearing No. 410-2014-00446X Agency No. 4K-300-0074-14 DECISION On October 24, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s September 22, 2015, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Letter Carrier at the Agency’s Cottage Hill Annex in Carrollton, Georgia. On April 1, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. her request for Sick Leave, submitted on November 8, 2013 for November 26, 2013, was denied; 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. 0120160282 2 2. her request for Annual Leave, submitted on November 8, 2013 for November 29, 2013, was denied; 3. her request for Annual Leave, submitted on December 2, 2013 for December 6, 2013, was denied; 4. on December 2, 2013, she was instructed to bring in medical documentation for her absences on November 26, 2013 and November 29, 2013 or she would be charged Absent Without Leave (AWOL); and she was instructed to return to the office by 6:00 PM from her route; 5. on December 9, 2013, after returning from Leave, she was subjected to an Investigative Interview; 6. her request for Sick Leave, submitted on December 13, 2013 for December 17, 2013, was denied; 7. her request for Sick Leave, submitted on December 18, 2013 for December 30 & 31, 2013, was denied; 8. on December 18, 2013 the Supervisor attempted to give her a Letter of Warning which she refused until her union steward was present; and 9. on January 9, 2014 she was notified by her Union Steward that she had been issued a Letter of Warning. 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, but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As this is an appeal from a 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). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the 0120160282 3 parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). 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 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). Claim #1 (Sick Leave Denied for November 26, 2013) The Agency explains that Complainant’s request for sick leave was denied because she had no accrued sick leave in her leave account. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #2 (Annual Leave Denied for November 29, 2013) The Agency explains that Complainant’s request for annual leave was denied because the day on which she was seeking to take leave was the Friday after Thanksgiving for which other carriers also requested leave. By the time Complainant’s leave request was received, the maximum number of carriers who could be granted leave for that day had been reached. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #3 (Annual Leave Denied for December 6, 2013) According to the Agency “leave requests for December are not usually approved in advance” because of the heavy mail volume the Agency typically experiences in December. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. 0120160282 4 Claim #4 (Required to Submit Medical Information to Support Absences; Required to Return by 6PM) The Agency explains that it required Complainant to submit medical documentation to justify her absences on November 26, 2013 and November 29, 2013 because she had requested leave for medical appointments. See, Report of Investigation, Aff. D at 7. The Agency explains that Complainant was required to return from her route by 6PM because that was the time that the last truck transporting outgoing mail left the facility. These are legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus Claim #5 (Subjected to Investigative Interview) According to the Agency, Complainant was given an investigative interview on December 9, 2013, because she failed to comply with instructions to report for duty when her leave requests were denied. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #6 (Sick Leave Denied for December 17, 2013) The Agency explains that advance sick leave requests for full days are typically not granted in December because of the heavy mail volume the Agency typically experiences in that month. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #7 (Sick Leave Denied for December 30 and 31, 2013) The record indicates that Complainant had an insufficient sick leave balance to cover her absences on December 30 and 31, 2013. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claims #8 and #9 (Letter of Warning) According to the Agency, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning because of her failure to report to work regularly, in particular, for her disregard of disapproved leave, i.e. taking leave despite a leave request having been denied. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has adduced no evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus 0120160282 5 Harassment Finally, insofar as Complainant contends that the incidents alleged constitute harassment based upon her prior protected activity, the Commission finds that, since she failed to refute the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the Agency for its actions, she also failed to establish that such actions were taken on the basis of her protected activity. Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a discriminatory hostile work environment. See Bennett v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05980746 (September 19, 2000). CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we affirm the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. 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; 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. 0120160282 6 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. 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 February 6, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation