Complainant,v.Jacob J. Lew, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (U.S. Mint), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 20, 2015

01-2013-3271-0500 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 2015)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(U.S. Mint),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120133271

Agency No. MINT-13-0141-F

DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency’s final decision dated August 9,
2013, 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
In his complaint, Complainant alleged discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:

(1) On November 13, 2012, he was reassigned from his normal duties as a Production
Machinery Mechanic (PMM) and asked to perform duties as a Die Setter in addition to
the duties of a PMM; and

(2) On November 13, 2012, he reported to management unsafe working conditions and his
report was ignored by management.

After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a final Agency
decision without a hearing. The Agency thus issued its final Agency decision concluding that
it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Complainant failed to
rebut. Complainant did not submit any arguments on appeal.

0120133271

2

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. (November 9, 1999) (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 established a prima facie
case of discrimination, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the alleged incidents. The record indicates that Complainant sustained a work
related injury on January 6, 2011, and was out of work until November 13, 2012, at which
time he returned to work on full duty status.1

During the relevant time period at issue,
Complainant was a PMM, WG-5350-10, at the Agency’s U.S. Mint facility in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
With regard to claim (1), Complainant’s Metal Forming Machine Operator Supervisor
indicated that she was one of the supervisors who assigned work to individuals on
Complainant’s shift. On the date of the incident, stated the supervisor, Complainant was
reassigned work to do as a Die Setter because of manpower requirements in that section. The
supervisor denied Complainant was required to perform both PMM and Die Setter duties at the
same time and also denied he was treated any differently than other employees she supervised.
Complainant’s two other supervisors concurred with the foregoing statements.

With regard to claim (2), Complainant’s supervisors denied the alleged incidents. Specifically,
the supervisor stated that all the safety violations reported were addressed and corrected. The
record indicates that since he returned to work in November 2012, Complainant reported
problems with coin “sound enclosure doors.” The record also indicates that the Agency
inspected the reported problems within a day or a week of reporting and fixed the problem
within two weeks of reporting. On appeal, Complainant does not contest this.

In addition, we note that Complainant claimed a number of incidents concerning his working
conditions and harassment, i.e., having one tool box, the time limits for breaks and access to
the vault to get dies, and official time. The Agency indicated that Complainant was granted
four hours of official time to complete his affidavit during the relevant time period at issue.
Complainant does not dispute this. Also, the Agency indicated that under its Coining Division
policy, all its employees could only have one toolbox in addition to a hand cart for transporting
tools to different location. Complainant also does not dispute this. Furthermore, there is no

1 It is noted that Complainant does not claim discrimination on the basis of disability.
0120133271

3
evidence that Complainant was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under
similar circumstances with regard to break times and the vault access time limit.

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. Based on the foregoing, we find
that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination as
he alleged.

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

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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).
0120133271

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

(Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an
attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or
denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney
with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and
the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to
File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

Date
May 20, 2015