Logan G.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 9, 20160120151094 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 9, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Logan G.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120151094 Agency No. 1E-982-0022-14 DECISION On February 2, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s January 5, 2015, final decision concerning his 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Lead Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Seattle Network Distribution Center in Federal Way, Washington. On July 9, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of his race (Caucasian), national origin (American), sex (male), and color (white) when: 1. on an unspecified date, his scores on Form 17996-B were changed from 77.5 to 72.5; 2. on May 27, 2014, he became aware that management did not select him for the position of Mail Flow Controller (MFC); and 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. 0120151094 2 3. since on or about May 31, 2014, and ongoing, management has treated him less favorably than another lead mail processing clerk.2 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his 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 him to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant reiterates his contention that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination and asserts that the statements of management officials are not worthy of belief. 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 in a disparate treatment claim, 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 he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. 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 804 n. 14. 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). 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). 2 In his complaint, Complainant also alleged that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination when on or about February 28, 2014, his request for Mail Flow Controller training was denied. The Agency dismissed this claim, by letter dated July 28, 2014, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO counselor contact. We note that Complainant does not raise this claim on appeal, and upon review of the record, the Commission affirms the Agency’s dismissal. 0120151094 3 Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of race, sex, national origin, and color discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, with respect to claims (1) and (2), the record shows that Complainant was one of ten applicants for seven vacant Mail Flow Controller (MFC) positions and was interviewed on or about May 27, 2014. Two officials (R1 and R2) were tasked with reviewing the applications for the MFC positions and the lead manager, distribution operations (M1) was the selecting official. The record shows that the reviewing officials scored the applications but had a difference of opinion on how to score Complainant in the area of experience with mail flow operations which was a major function of the MFC position. R1 stated that Complainant’s application reflected that he had no experience with mail flow operations and that he should therefore be given a score of zero in that category which would have disqualified him from consideration. R2, however, had personal knowledge of Complainant’s work history and believed he should be scored higher. R1 and R2 stated that they reached a compromise of giving Complainant a score of 1 in that category which resulted in an overall score of 72.5 for Complainant. M1 stated that because Complainant did not demonstrate knowledge of the mail flow control system, he was not among the best qualified candidates for an MFC position and was not among the seven candidates selected. We find that Complainant has not proffered any persuasive evidence to show that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory animus or that the Agency’s articulated reasons are pretextual. Finally, with respect to claim (3), the record shows that Complainant was awarded the position of lead mail processing clerk (LMPC) on May 31, 2014. Complainant contends that another LMPC (CW1), was treated more favorably by management in that she was allowed access to various computer systems, was given a key to the supervisors’ break room, and was invited to attend supervisor meetings while he was not invited. The record shows, however, that CW1 had a key to the break room and was invited to meetings because she was an acting supervisor and that she had access to the computer systems because of her previous experience as an associate supervisor. Further M1 stated that LMPCs are not given access to the systems at issue for security reasons, and that no other LMPCs have access to the supervisors’ break room or are invited to supervisor meetings. We find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. 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: 0120151094 4 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 0120151094 5 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, Director Office of Federal Operations February 9, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation