0120160804
04-11-2016
Gretchen M.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Gretchen M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160804
Agency No. 4X-048-0038-15
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's December 15, 2015 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Customer Care Agent at the Agency's Customer Care Center in Los Angeles, California.
On July 14, 2014, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability (lumbar condition) and age (over 40) when:
on December 18, 2014 and continuing, the Manager of Health and Resources Management failed to process her CA-1 form.
Complainant attributed a neck injury to a non-work related car accident and low back and knee conditions were attributable to an on-the-job injury in 2010. Complainant stated that on December 9, 2014, she suffered another on-the-job injury. Complainant stated that since the date of the most recent on-the-job injury, her physician placed her on a temporary total disability status. Complainant stated that on December 15, 2015, she filed a CA-1 to report the December 9, 2014 on-the-job injury. However, the Manager left her a telephone message advising her that she should have filed an alternate CA-2 form. Complainant averred that the Manager was refusing to process her CA-1.
After the investigation of the claim, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of the investigation and with a notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence. Complainant did not respond.
On December 15, 2015, the Agency issued the instant final decision, finding no discrimination. The Agency found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of disability and age discrimination.2 The Agency further found assuming, for the sake of argument only, Complainant established a prima facie case of disability and age discrimination, Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action which Complainant failed to show were a pretext.
The instant appeal followed. Complainant, on appeal, argues that the Agency erred finding no discrimination. For instance, Complainant states that the Agency "committed in 'error in law' when the Agency disregarded and dismissed the Complainant as stated by her, and as reference in this instant appeal."
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Complainant alleged that the Manager's refusal to process her CA-1 form was based on her disability and age. Complainant stated as a result, she lost benefits such as continuation of pay, retirement income, leave and benefits.
In her affidavit, the Manager stated that during the relevant period, she did not know Complainant and was not aware of her age. The Manager stated that she first became aware of Complainant's medical condition on December 29, 2015. The Manager stated that she never refused to process Complainant's CA-1 form and contacted Complainant to inform Complainant that she filed the wrong claim. Specifically, the Manager stated that employees should complete a CA-1 form when they incur a traumatic injury that occurs over one work shift and a CA-2 form when they suffer from an "occupational illness that occurred over more than one work day, or a series of events in one work day." The Manager stated that she contacted Complainant "to let her know she filed the wrong claim, and she should file the claim with her immediate supervisor."
The Manager stated that she drew this conclusion upon reading Complainant's statement about the nature of the injury. The Manager stated that she concluded that Complainant's injuries were initially sustained in February 2010, and therefore, did not constitute a traumatic injury. The record reflects that Complainant's claim was processed and adjudicated by the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Program. Moreover, the Manager stated that she did not discriminate against Complainant based on her disability and age.
Neither during the investigation, nor on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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, 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).
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
April 11, 2016
__________________
Date
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.
2 For purposes of this analysis, we assume, without so finding, that Complainant was a qualified individual with a disability.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120160804
5
0120160804
6
0120160804