Ciera B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 18, 20180120171052 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 18, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ciera B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120171052 Agency No. 4K220003716 DECISION On January 22, 2017, 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 December 19, 2016, 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. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the final agency decision (FAD) properly found that Complainant did not establish that she was discriminated against or subjected to harassment based on race and sex with regard to 6 incidents which formed the basis of her discrimination claim. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisor, Customer Service at the Agency’s Euclid Carrier Annex facility in Manassas, Virginia. On July 14, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (female) when she was subjected to harassment as 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. 0120171052 2 evidenced by 6 separate incidents to include: terminating her higher-level detail assignment; changing her work schedule; ignoring her emails; and writing her up for safety violations. The Agency explained that it’s conduct was due to a business necessity consistent with operational needs and requirements; that Complainant was not written up for safety violations; and that its actions were not motivated by discriminatory animus. Issue #1 - On April 6, 2016, her higher level detail was terminated. Complainant testified that on January 11, 2016, she began a detail as the Manager of the Manassas Annex Post Office. The detail was terminated April 6, 2016 by the Acting Postmaster (S1). According to Complainant, the detail assignment did not have an ending date. Complainant was informed by S1 that the reason for the termination of her detail assignment was that the supervisor hours were too high in the Annex. The Agency explained that the decision to terminate Complainant’s assignment was not due to her race or sex, but operational needs. The two carriers who were acting as supervisors were needed to return to their routes. Therefore, Complainant did not have to supervise them. S1 indicated that management officials were within their rights to terminate the higher-level detail because employees were not entitled to higher level detail assignments. Issue #2 - On April 6, 2016, her start time was changed. Complainant averred that her bid assignment as a Supervisor with hours of 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. was changed to 9 a.m. - closing, which would vary. She disclosed that prior to April 6, 2016, she worked either 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., or 6:30 a.m. to between 3:30 p.m. and 5 p.m., depending on whether she was opening the office or working the Manager’s scheduled hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Complainant revealed S1 made the decision to change her start time on April 6, 2016. She indicated S1 stated that the reason for the change was based on the performance of who opened the office the 3 months Complainant was there compared to the 3 - 4 months S1 was acting as the Postmaster and another supervisor (S2) was the Manager. She imparted she disagreed with the reason she was given because S2 stated she would never close and she admitted that S1 spoke with her. S1 stated that Complainant’s start time was temporarily changed from 08:00 to 09:00 based on the needs of the service. She maintained when she spoke with Complainant on April 6, 2016, she explained the reason for the change and that it was temporary. She disclosed that she used a report to determine who would be best utilized on each shift; and Complainant was given the later shift because she had received extra training in the Rural Operation. 0120171052 3 Issue #3 - On April 6, 2016, her off day was changed. Complainant stated that she had Saturday as an off day since December 2014. This continued, in January 2016, when she began the detail assignment as Acting Manager. S1, however, changed her off day to Tuesday, which was her bid off day; but she gave those her hours to S2. Complainant disclosed that previous Postmasters established Saturday as an off day for the Manager. She indicated that she was not provided a reason for the change. The Agency explained that Complainant had Saturday off as part of her temporary higher level detail assignment as the Manager. When that temporary higher level detail assignment was terminated, she was returned to her bid off day of Tuesday. Management maintained that she could not have maintained a Saturday off day without negatively impacting the operation. Issue #4 - on May 31, 2016, she was required to work her off day. Complainant testified that she received a phone call from another manager after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 27, informing her that she had to work her off day the next Tuesday. She stated that when she responded that she had plans, the manager indicated that she had an open route on the City Carrier side and Complainant was needed to work and close. Complainant stated that she worked her off day on Tuesday, May 31, 2016. Complainant also stated that she disagreed with the reason provided because she did not make the City Schedule and she was not told until that Friday. Complainant maintained that unless it was an emergency, one should be given sufficient notice to any schedule change. The Agency explained that the decision to require Complainant to work on her day off was based on an operational need. Management added that other employees also had to work on their days off and/or on holidays for that same reason. Issue #5 - On date(s) to be specified, her email inquiries regarding operations were ignored. Complainant stated she sent emails to S1 after being asked about clerk coverage of other offices and preparation for Amazon delivery; but received no response to her emails. She indicated that she also sent emails to S1, and three other management staff requesting the names of the carriers reporting for Sunday; and only received a response from one of them. She stated she was not provided a reason for management not responding to her emails. Complainant maintained that answering only one person’s email could be considered discrimination or harassment, and would violate the Postal Ethics and Conduct Code. The Agency asserts that Complainant’s emails were responded to either in writing, via a phone call or in the form of a personal visit. 0120171052 4 Issue #6 - On May 27, 2016, she was written up for safety violations. Complainant testified that on May 27, 2016 management wrote her up alleging she needed to fix several deficiencies at her office. She indicated that she disagreed with the write-up because the other offices were annotated as being “all good”; but they all needed the same documentation. She stated that she also disagreed with the write-up because the email was sent to her as if she was the Manager, but her higher level assignment had been terminated. Complainant explained that on May 25, S1 and another manager came and walked around the building. She indicated that when she told S1 she was going to have the custodian discard the big sign that was sitting on the dock, S1 responded to let her find out how to properly dispose of it. Two days later, Complainant stated that Safety showed up and she was written up. Complainant maintained that the email sounded as if S1 called Safety after she walked around the building. Complainant stated that S1 and the other manager’s conduct could be considered discrimination or harassment, and would violate the Postal Ethics and Conduct Code. The Agency explained Complainant’s claim that she was written up for safety violations was not true. The record indicates that Complainant received an email from a Safety Specialist because he thought she was the Acting Manager of the facility. The information on the chart in the “Comments/Missing” portion of the May 27, 2016 email was information found during the initial site visits on February 29, 2016 of all the offices. The information pertaining to the Euclid Annex on the May 27, 2016 visit was contained in the body of the email which stated the sign-in sheet for a Safety Talk was missing. The Agency added that the Safety Specialist sent another email on May 27, 2016, concerning a fire exit and blocked loading dock that was reported to the District anonymously. He was directed to investigate the complaint, which he did on May 27, 2016. The Agency maintained that Complainant was sent a copy of the email because the Safety Specialist thought she was still the acting Manager of the facility; and that Complainant was not written up as a result of the incidents. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge. When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), 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. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Among other claims, Complainant contends that S2 kept receiving her higher pay after her detail assignment ended; and that she and other Black female employees were treated less favorably than other employees. She also asserts that the Agency’s explanations for its actions as stated in the FAD are not to be believed. 0120171052 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW 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”). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS To prevail in a disparate treatment claim absent direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. at 802-04. Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing 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). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reason proffered by the Agency was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination; we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as set forth above. The Agency explained that it took the actions because of a business necessity consistent with operational needs and requirements; that Complainant was not written up for safety violations, nor were her emails ignored; and that none of its actions were motivated by discriminatory animus against Complainant as alleged. In an effort to show pretext, Complainant asserts that she was treated less favorably than other employees; that she had to work her days off and on holidays; and that S2 kept receiving her higher level pay after her detail assignment ended. Complainant stated she was written up for safety violations when others were not. However, the record indicates that the comparators Complainant identified in support of her claim were not appropriate because they either also had their detail assignments terminated, belonged to the same protected groups as Complainant, had to work their days off and/or on holidays or worked in a higher job classifications. S1 also testified that she was not aware that S2 kept receiving higher level pay after her detail assignment was terminated as Complainant maintained. 0120171052 6 Under these circumstances, Complainant’s allegations are not supported by the totality of the record and Complainant has failed to present any plausible evidence that would demonstrate that management’s reasons for its actions lacked basis in the facts of the case or that their conduct resulted from nonlegitimate and other motivations not articulated by management. Regarding Complainant’s hostile work environment claim, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant’s claim of a hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 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 because the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not establish that discrimination occurred. 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. 0120171052 7 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 October 18, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation