Chad T.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 31, 2018

0120171075 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2018)

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

Chad T.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120171075

Agency No. 4B-110-0096-16

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated December 13, 2016, finding no
discrimination concerning his 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 decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, PS-02,
at the Agency’s Manhasset Post Office in Manhasset, New York. On July 20, 2016,
Complainant filed his complaint alleging discrimination based on race (African American), color
(black), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on April 6, 2016, he was issued a notice of
removal dated April 5, 2015.

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.
0120171075

2
After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant did not request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).2 The Agency then issued its final Agency decision
concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which
Complainant failed to rebut.3

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 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 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").

After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the alleged incident. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant
was a City Carrier.

Complainant’s supervisor (S1) indicated that he issued Complainant the April 5, 2016 notice of
removal due to his failure to follow instructions and conduct becoming of a postal employee.
Therein, S1 indicated that on March 24, 2016, Complainant approached S1 to request paperwork.
Complainant wanted to amend his Auxiliary Control form to include an additional 15 minutes of
overtime. S1 refused the request since Complainant already submitted the form which needed to
be in early to schedule carriers accordingly and there was no reason to change the time because
no other mail was given to him. S1 then told Complainant to go back to his case but he refused
to do so. S1 asked the same to Complainant several times but he kept saying “No” and “kept
inching closer and closer into [S1’s] personal space.” Complainant became argumentative and
confrontational. In the notice of removal, S1 cited a number of prior disciplinary actions issued
to Complainant.

The Agency indicated that Complainant filed a grievance regarding the notice of removal at issue
and the matter was resolved on May 16, 2016. As a result, the Agency rescinded the notice of
removal and expunged it from Complainant’s record.

2 On appeal, Complainant merely indicates that he requested a hearing on November 1, 2016.
He did not provide any evidence of such and the record is devoid of any request.
3 Although the Agency in its decision also dismissed the complaint as moot since the removal
notice at issue was rescinded and expunged from the record as a result of Complainant’s
grievance, since the subject matter was fully investigated, we will address the merits of the case
without addressing the finding of mootness.
0120171075

3
After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
articulated reasons were a mere pretext for discrimination. After a review of the record, we find
that Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in his
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 he alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision 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;
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).

0120171075

4
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

October 31, 2018
Date