Leonie L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 25, 2019

0120180201 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 25, 2019)

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

Leonie L.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120180201

Agency No. 4G752012017

DECISION

On October 13, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
September 19, 2017, final decision concerning her 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

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier, PS-12,
at the McKinney Main Post Office in McKinney, Texas.

On March 31, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint defined by the Agency as alleging that
the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (White), sex (female), and age (over 40)
when on January 25, 2017, she was issued a Letter of Removal, which the Agency subsequently
reduced to a 7-day suspension on February 1, 2017. Complainant has not challenged the framing
of the complaint.

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.
0120180201

2
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). When Complainant did not request a hearing
within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), 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 her 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”).

To prevail on claim of disparate treatment discrimination, Complainant must satisfy a three-part
evidentiary scheme first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
First, Complainant must 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. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S.
567, 576 (1978). Second, the burden is on the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Third,
should the Agency carry its burden, Complainant must then have an opportunity to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the Agency were not its true
reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804; St. Mary’s
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). 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. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v.
Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983).

Assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the
alleged bases, we note that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions. As reflected in the investigative record, Complainant’s supervisor explained that he
removed Complainant from federal service because she left her assigned postal vehicle running
and unattended. Complainant’s supervisor also cited Complainant’s failure to wear a seatbelt and
failure to park her assigned postal vehicle with the wheels against the curb as additional bases for
removal. She was observed by management committing these safety violations.

Complainant now bears the burden of establishing that the Agency's stated reasons were merely a
pretext for discrimination. Complainant v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec.
6, 1996).
0120180201

3
Indicators of pretext include discriminatory statements or past personal treatment attributable to
those responsible for the personnel action that led to the filing of the complaint, comparative or
statistical data revealing differences in treatment across various protected-group lines, unequal
application of Agency policy, deviations from standard procedures without explanation or
justification, or inadequately explained inconsistencies in the evidentiary record. Mellissa F. v.
U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141697 (Nov. 12, 2015).

Complainant contends that the Agency is incorrect in finding she committed the safety violations.
She also contends that the Agency failed to conduct a thorough investigative interview because
her supervisor only asked her three standard questions and one additional question regarding the
alleged incident. She asserts that an investigative interview is never less than five questions and a
removal involves a lot more questions.

After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we find no persuasive evidence that the
Agency’s articulated reasons were pretext for discrimination. We agree with the Agency that
management officials had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for removing Complainant from
federal service. In reaching this conclusion, we acknowledge that Complainant disputes the
Agency’s allegations; however, we find that Complainant has not shown by preponderance of the
evidence that her supervisor’s firsthand observations were incorrect or demonstrated that her
supervisor’s actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Complainant also has not shown
that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated comparators. Even if Complainant is
assumed to be correct (for the sake of argument) in her assertion that the Agency erred in failing
to ask a minimum of five questions during the investigative interview, we find no causal link
between Agency’s actions and Complainant’s protected characteristics.

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the Agency’s decision finding no discrimination.

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.
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.
0120180201

4
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. The court has the sole

0120180201

5
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 25, 2019
Date