Cleveland C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 19, 2016

0120142612 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 19, 2016)

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

Cleveland C.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120142612

Hearing No. 560-2014-00175X

Agency No. 4J-630-0094-13

DECISION

On July 8, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s June 26, 2014, final decision
concerning his 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

The record reveals that previously Complainant worked for the Agency as a City Carrier
Transitional Employee (TE) at the Marissa Post Office in Marissa, Illinois. Complainant was
separated from the Agency effective January 25, 2013. The record reveals Complainant was
terminated during his probationary period for an “Unsatisfactory Record of Service.”
Beginning January 27, 2013, Complainant requested that the Agency reinstate him.

On May 30, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against him on the bases of sex (male) and age (over 40) when:

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.
0120142612

2

On March 15, 2013, he received notification that his request to be reinstated to a
Transitional Employee (TE) position was denied.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Initially Complainant requested a hearing
but subsequently he withdrew his request. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency, and
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 him 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”).

At the outset, we note that on appeal Complainant does not challenge the definition of his
complaint. Upon review, we find the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for not reinstating Complainant on March 15, 2013. The record reveals that following his
termination Complainant contacted the Postmaster General on January 27, 2013, requesting to
continue working with the Agency at a different office in the St. Louis area. The Manager,
Human Resources responded to Complainant’s request for reinstatement to the Postmaster
General. In a March 15, 2013 letter, the Manager, Human Resources explained that in
response to Complainant’s request she contacted the Postmasters of Marissa and Mascoutah,
the two locations where Complainant previously carried mail. The Manager, Human
Resources stated that both Postmasters reported concerns with Complainant’s performance
while carrying mail in their offices. In her letter, the Manager, Human Resources stated that
Complainant was given a reasonable amount of time to become familiar with the routes he
carried. The Manager, Human Resources stated that both Postmasters reported that
Complainant was instructed on time-wasting practices and how to improve efficiency but he
did not follow those instructions. The Manager, Human Resources stated that “the reasons for
[Complainant’s] removal preclude a more favorable response to [his] request for
reinstatement.” Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the Agency’s
actions were a pretext for discrimination.

0120142612

3
CONCLUSION

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

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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 or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. 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. The requests 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 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”
0120142612

4
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

August 19, 2016
Date