Celine B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 14, 20180120160163 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 14, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Celine B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120160163 Agency No. 4G-335-0004-15 DECISION On September 30, 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 1, 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 Part-Time Flexible, Sales and Services Distribution Associate (Clerk) at the Bowling Green Post Office (BGPO) in Bowling Green, Florida. On November 12, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment based on race (Caucasian) when: (1) on September 27, 2014, Complainant was warned to complete her assignments in a timely manner or else she would receive disciplinary action; (2) the Postmaster (PM) told Complainant that she was sick of her questions and if she continued to ask questions she would receive a Notice of Removal; and (3) on a continuing basis, Complainant is required to substantiate her work as she is often accused of unsatisfactory work performance by another. 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. 0120160163 2 After 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). In accordance with Complainant’s request, 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 parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). To establish a claim of harassment Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected classes; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Therefore, in order to establish her harassment claim, Complainant must show that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. Aside from Complainant’s bare, uncorroborated assertions, the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record supports PM’s testimony that Complainant was not treated differently than the only other Clerk (C1) at BGPO. With respect to Claim 1, PM explains that the District Office had mandated that all employees complete Dangerous Goods & Export Awareness training by September 30, 2014. The training course description indicates that it was a one-hour course. The record shows that Complainant took 117 minutes to complete this training. Moreover, PM asserts that the other employees did not require extra time to complete the training. PM also denies putting any pressure on Complainant on September 27, 2014, to 0120160163 3 complete her duties. PM explains that Complainant had informed her that she had completed her duties from September 26, 2014, thus there was no reason to rush Complainant as she had over seven hours to complete a half day’s work and the balance of her training. PM further notes that if Complainant felt rushed it was because she was trying to leave early and not work a full day. With respect to Claim 2, PM asserts that on September 27, 2014, her conversation with Complainant consisted of what assistance she needed in getting the mail out and not to leave without completing her mandatory training. PM further asserts that Complainant asked her on that date how long she was supposed to work and she responded by telling Complainant to work until she finished her training and to inform her when she was done. PM further denies that she directed Complainant to an isolated area of the BGPO and threatened her with discipline or removal. PM also denies stating that she was sick of Complainant’s questioning and that if she continued she would seek her removal. With respect to Claim 3, PM denies having blamed Complainant for any mistake or error made by C1. PM also asserts that she required Complainant (as she does for every employee) to substantiate their work, especially when they were being trained. PM further explains that she took such an approach to assure that her employees were aware of what was required to be done and why. Additionally, PM asserts that this approach was needed because the Clerks needed to know how to fix errors because the office was small and sometimes a supervisor would not be available. PM states that if employees can identify errors and correct them, they would be more likely to perform on their own when required. However, PM asserts that Complainant was not required to substantiate her work anymore than any other employee. Lastly, PM denies race to be a motivating factor with respect to her employment actions. We agree with the Agency in concluding that Complainant has failed to prove that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Considering both the totality of the acts described herein, and the context in which these issues occurred, Complainant has not shown that she was subjected to conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it created a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment or unreasonably interfered with her work performance. It is noted that the events Complainant describes do not include any abusive or hostile language or ongoing and continuous acts that deprive Complainant of a right or privilege of employment. We also find insufficient evidence that PM’s actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. CONCLUSION Accordingly, based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding that Complainant failed to prove she was discriminated against as alleged. 0120160163 4 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. 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. 0120160163 5 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 14, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation