Jaunita W.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 17, 20180120182432 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 17, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jaunita W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120182432 Hearing No. 430-2017-00267X Agency No. 1K281005016 DECISION Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency’s final order dated June 1, 2018, finding no discrimination with regard to her 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, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk, PS-06 at the Agency’s Mid Carolina Processing and Distribution Center facility in Charlotte, North Carolina. Complainant’s claim stems from her dispute that she was not selected to temporarily or permanently fill the Lead Clerk position. The record establishes and Complainant admits in the four times the position was open for bids, she never bid on the Lead Clerk position which was a requirement to be selected. On July 14, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) 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. 0120182432 2 and age (64) when on July 6, 2016, she became aware that she was not selected for the Lead Clerk position. 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 (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case determined, sua sponte, that the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Decision Without a Hearing on December 8, 2017. The Agency filed a response to the notice which included a statement of undisputed material facts and request to issue a decision without a hearing. Complainant filed a response to the notice and requested that the AJ hold a hearing. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing on May 21, 2018, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. Complainant appeals the Agency’s final order. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In the instant case, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to discrimination. Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie case 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. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). In a disparate treatment case, a prima facie case of discrimination based on sex many be done by Complainant's showing that she is in a protected class, and was treated less favorably than other, similarly situated employees outside her protected class. Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864, 865 (6th Cir. 1875). The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 0120182432 3 To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Here, Complainant fails to produce any evidence that would support an inference of discrimination. Specifically, the record shows in the four times the Lead Clerk position was open for bids, Complainant never submitted a bid which was a requirement for permanent selection as a Lead Clerk. Moreover, of the four applicants who were selected to a Lead Clerk position after submitting bids, three were females and at least one individual was over 40 years old. Complainant failed to establish that similarly situated employees outside of her protected class were treated more favorably. Accordingly, we find Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of sex and age discrimination. We find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant could establish a prima facie case of age and sex discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. Specifically, the Agency articulated that to be selected for Lead Clerk as a permanent position, applicants had to go through the bidding process. Complainant failed to submit a bid for any of the four postings during this time frame. Complainant has failed to provide any evidence to show that the Agency’s action was a pretext for discrimination. After a review of the record, we find that the record is adequately developed and there are no material facts in dispute. We also find that the AJ properly found that the complaint was properly decided without a hearing. Upon review, the AJ found and we agree that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination. Complainant failed to establish any evidence of discrimination based on sex or age. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order 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. 0120182432 4 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). 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. 0120182432 5 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 17, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation