Jerilyn R.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 17, 20160120142908 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 17, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jerilyn R.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 0120142908 Hearing No. 470-2014-00054X Agency No. 4C-450-0075-13 DECISION On August 11, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s July 17, 2014 final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Our review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier Associate at the Agency’s work facility in Circleville, Ohio. On April 29, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of her sex (female) when on or about February 22, 2013, her employment was terminated. 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 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. 0120142908 2 Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a decision without a hearing on July 9, 2014. The AJ found that no sex discrimination occurred. The AJ stated that Complainant was hired as a Rural Carrier Associate at the Circleville facility on September 22, 2012, after a break in service from her former position as a Temporary Relief Carrier, which she began on September 26, 2011. Complainant hit a pole while driving her Agency vehicle on February 16, 2013. At the time of the accident, Complainant was in her probationary period in the Rural Carrier Associate position. On February 22, 2013, the Circleville Postmaster issued Complainant a letter of termination. The letter of termination specified that Complainant was being terminated because she had been in a preventable motor vehicle accident. The letter of termination noted that Complainant’s work performance was unsatisfactory and unsafe and referenced that she was still in her probationary period. The AJ observed that Complainant cited three male comparisons who had accidents with their vehicles but were not terminated. According to the AJ, the entry on duty dates for these comparisons ranged from November 2000 – September 2004. The AJ stated that Complainant’s accident was the only accident of its nature during the Postmaster’s tenure at Circleville between September 11, 2012 and April 5, 2013. The AJ found that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The AJ noted that the Postmaster was not the decision-maker with regard to discipline when the comparisons’ accidents occurred. The AJ stated that Complainant did not rebut the Agency’s assertion that no accidents of a similar nature occurred during the Postmaster’s time in charge of the Circleville facility. The AJ states that even if Complainant had set forth a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the Agency presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant’s termination. The Agency stated that Complainant had a preventable motor vehicle accident during her probationary period. The AJ noted several arguments set forth by Complainant to establish that the Agency’s explanation was pretextual. Complainant contends that the collective bargaining agreement does not require a probationary period when a Relief Carrier becomes a Rural Carrier Associate. However, the AJ found that Complainant was not a Rural Carrier Relief employee and therefore that provision of the agreement does not apply to her. Complainant maintained that the Agency did not apply progressive discipline. However, the AJ points out that Complainant did not present evidence to dispute the Agency’s position that probationary employees can be separated at any time during the probationary period and therefore are not entitled to progressive discipline. Complainant further argued that her supervisor should have issued the discipline rather than the Postmaster. The AJ rejected this contention, noting there was no supporting authority presented. Finally, Complainant claimed that the Postmaster inaccurately characterized the accident as egregious. Complainant stated that the accident did not result in any damage. The AJ disputed this assertion, stating there is no evidence there was not any damage. The AJ noted that the accident investigation worksheet reported that the 0120142908 3 right front side by the turn signal was dented in. The AJ further noted that the Postmaster referred to Complainant’s unsafe act as egregious rather than the damage it caused. The AJ found that the Agency’s reason for terminating Complainant cannot be shown to be untrue or a pretext for illegal discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant appeal. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL In response, the Agency asserts that the probationary period for a Rural Carrier Associate shall be ninety days actually worked or one calendar year, whichever comes first, and that Complainant was still within her ninety-day probationary period for the Rural Carrier Associate position when her accident occurred. The Agency states that none of the three comparisons cited by Complainant were in their probationary period when their accidents occurred, and thus they are not similarly situated to Complainant. According to the Agency, the Postmaster determined that despite receiving proper driving training, Complainant exhibited a severe lack of judgment that led to a preventable motor vehicle accident. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish 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. Corp. 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, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tx. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). 0120142908 4 In the instant case, the Commission finds that the AJ properly issued summary judgment as the material facts are undisputed. The Commission agrees with the AJ that assuming arguendo that she established a prima facie case of discrimination and reprisal, Complainant failed to present evidence to rebut the Agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the Agency stated that Complainant was terminated because she was in a preventable motor vehicle accident. The letter of termination noted that Complainant’s work performance was unsatisfactory and unsafe and that she was in her probationary period when the accident occurred. We find that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency’s stated reasons for her termination were pretext intended to hide discriminatory intent. CONCLUSION The Agency’s determination that no discrimination occurred is AFFIRMED. 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). 0120142908 5 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 February 17, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation