Marvella B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 20, 2016

0120143150 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 20, 2016)

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

Marvella B.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120143150

Hearing No. 430-2014-00212X

Agency No. 4K-280-0054-13

DECISION

On September 10, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s September 5, 2014,
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. 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 at
the Agency’s facility in Hope Mills, North Carolina. On August 12, 2013, Complainant filed
an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of her race
(African-American) and color (black) when: (1) from February 20, 2013, management did not
allow her to use a long-life vehicle (LLV) to deliver her route. Complainant later amended her
complaint and alleged that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination on the bases of
her race, color, sex, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (2) on December 5,
2013, she reported to work and management told her to go home; (3) on December 11 and 12,
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.

0120143150

2
2013, management changed her start time; and (4) on December 12, 2013, she was the only
carrier instructed by management to be off the street by 5:30 pm.

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 but
subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, 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. Complainant makes no arguments on
appeal.

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 she 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).

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of race,
color, sex, and reprisal discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, with respect to claim (1), Complainant
states that on February 20, 2013, her supervisor (S1) informed her that she would no longer be
allowed to use an LLV on her route because the route did not have an LLV assigned to it. The
record shows that prior to bidding on her current route, Complainant had been allowed to use
an LLV, however her new route did not qualify for one. The Postmaster (PM) states that
LLVs are only assigned to routes that meet specific criteria, but that rural carriers, such as

0120143150

3
Complainant, are required to provide their own vehicles. Both the PM and S1 state that
management may authorize a carrier to use an LLV in an emergency if one is available,
however, this is only done on a case by case basis. They further state that because
Complainant’s route did not have an LLV assigned to it, she could no longer use one every
day. We find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its
actions are pretextual.

With respect to claim (2), the PM states that Complainant reported to work when she was not
on the schedule and another employee was already working Complainant’s route. The PM
states that because Complainant was not scheduled to work, she instructed Complainant to
leave the facility. We find that Complainant has not proffered any evidence to show that the
PM’s actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. As to claim (3), the PM states that
during the Christmas season, Complainant and other carriers had their start times changed to
prevent them from going into overtime. The PM further states that the routes would be cased
prior to the carriers reporting to work and that this was done as a cost saving measure. We find
that Complainant has not shown that management’s articulated reasons for its actions were
pretextual. Finally, with respect to claim (4), the PM denies instructing Complainant to be off
the street by 5:30 pm as the record shows Complainant did not finish her shift until 6:00 pm
but was not issued any discipline for returning after 5:30 pm. We find that Complainant has
not proffered any evidence to show that any of the Agency’s actions were motivated by
discriminatory or retaliatory animus, or 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:

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

0120143150

4
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 20, 2016
Date