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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 29, 2016

0120141723 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 29, 2016)

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

Matilda C.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120141723

Agency No. 4G3350144143

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s March 20, 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. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405(a). 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 Sales
Services/Distribution Associate at the Sulphur Springs Station located in Tampa, Florida. On
August 20, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that her first-line supervisor
(S1) (White) discriminated against her on the bases of race (Black) when from April 22, 2013
through August 9, 2013, she was subjected to a hostile work environment in regards to: (1) on
April 22, 2013, her request to make up time to take her daughter to an appointment during her
lunch break was denied; (2) on May 6, 2013, her request for a change of schedule for six
weeks was denied; (3) on numerous dates during April 2013, she was treated differently than
her White co-workers regarding work assignments and scheduled days off; and (4) on May 4,
2013, she and a co-worker got into an argument, but S1 did not ask for her side of the story.

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.
0120141723

2

The complainant also alleged discrimination/harassment based on race (Black) and retaliation
(current EEO activity initiated on May 13, 2013) when: (5) on July 20, 2013, S1 accused her
of taking a long break and threatened to call the police.

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”).

Claim 1

Complainant asserts that her daughter was diagnosed with cancer and she verbally requested to
attend her daughter's doctor appointment on April 24, 2013, at 11:30 a.m. She further states
that she asked S1 if she could extend her lunch hour and make up the time the same day
because she gets off work at 3:30 p.m. and the office closes at 5:30 p.m. However, S1 denied
her request because of the needs of the service. Complainant then went to the station manager
(S2) (Black) who approved her request. Contrary to Complainant’s testimony, both S1 and S2
testified that Complainant did not initially tell S1 the reason for the request.

Claim 2

Complainant states she learned at her daughter's doctor appointment that after her daughter's
surgery she would need to have six treatments of chemotherapy (one treatment a week for six
weeks). She states the doctor indicated her daughter would be weak and unable to drive. She
states she filled out six PS Forms 3971 leave slips requesting one day off a week for six weeks
so that she could take her daughter for the chemotherapy. S1 approved four of the requests
and disapproved two of the requests. Shortly thereafter, S2 approved the entire schedule
change.
0120141723

3

S1 states that Complainant submitted the requests for a schedule change incorrectly. She
testified that Complainant was advised to correct the requests and have them signed by her
shop steward prior to resubmitting them. However, according to S1, Complainant never
resubmitted them, but rather went directly to S2 for assistance who approved her request.

Claim 3

Complainant states that on April 30, 2013, she heard a White clerk tell S1 she was going to
scan parcels, but that she was tired. S1 then told the clerk to sit down and to let Complainant
scan the parcels. Complainant was required to run back and forth from her window
assignment to scan over 100 parcels. Complainant also asserts that she overheard a clerk tell
S1 on a Saturday she did not want to work the window and to send Complainant to do it,
which she did. Complainant further asserts that she can only use certain computers to perform
her work while the White clerks are permitted to use any computer they want to, including
S1’s computer.

S1 states that all employees have scanned parcels in between customers at the window. She
also testified that there may have been circumstances as to why another employee was not sent
to the window. S1 states that assumptions were made based on partial "overheard"
conversations. She further states that all the clerks are allowed to use the computer at the
supervisor's desk.

Claim 4

Complainant states that on May 4, 2013, she and a co-worker (C2) had a discussion and one
thing led to another and they cursed at each other. She testifies during the time they were
fussing and cursing each other (C2) yelled "see she threatened me, she threatened me."
However, Complainant asserts that C2 lied about being threatened. Complainant further states
that when S1 came into work she took C2 into S2’s office to speak with her. Complainant
asserts that S1 never asked her what happened.

S1 states she was not at work at the time of the incident but was instructed by S2 to take a
statement from C2 concerning the incident after C2 requested a threat assessment. She states
she was apprised of the incident from the supervisor on duty and did not interview
Complainant about the incident because she was not asked to do so. The documentary
evidence in the record shows that Complainant did provide a written statement about the
incident to S2.

Claim 5

Complainant states that on July 20, 2013, she was sitting outside the door of the post office for
her 15-minute break and S1 accused her of taking a 20-minute break after about 12 minutes.
0120141723

4
She states she told S1 that she did not feel good and was not going to put up with her that day
because she knew she had not taken a 20-minute break. Complainant also asserts that S1 said
not to yell at her and she told S1 that she was not yelling that she simply talks loud.
Complainant further states that S1 then said she was going to call the police on her. She states
she told S1 to do whatever she was big enough to do and walked off. S1 did not call the
police.

S1 disputes much of Complainant’s testimony. S1 further notes that Complainant and a co-
worker (C1) (Black) have no respect for her authority as a supervisor. According to S1, both
Complainant and C1 do not take direction well. Often times when she gives Complainant
directions she (Complainant) gets in her face and wants to bully her but she does not let her.
Accordingly to S1, Complainant often tells S1 that she does not have the right to question her
as she knows how to do her job. S1 also notes that when C1 does not like what she is told to
do, she will walk off the job. S1 notes that Complainant has raised her voice and tried to
intimidate her on more than one occasion. She further states that prior to this incident,
Complainant has refused to work overtime, threatened to go home, ignored her when given a
direct order, and has been combative with instructions directed to her. S1 denies that
Complainant’s race or EEO activity was a motivating factor in any of her actions toward
Complainant.

The record contains statements from several co-workers who support S1’s testimony that
Complainant and C1 do not respect S1’s authority, try to intimidate her and are generally
difficult to work with. Although C1 provided a statement in which she agrees with
Complainant that S1 has created a hostile work environment, her testimony is potentially
biased as she has filed her own EEO claim against S1. Aside from Complainant’s bare,
uncorroborated statements that her White co-workers will provide false testimony to support
S1, nothing in the record supports this contention. We also note that S2 (a Black supervisor)
also supports S1’s testimony that Complainant and C1 do not take instruction well.

Accordingly, assuming that Complainant has established that S1 treated her unequally, the
preponderance of the evidence does not support the finding that S1’s conduct was motivated by
Complainant’s race or prior EEO activity. Rather, the weight of the evidence supports the
conclusion that S1’s animus toward Complainant stems from the belief that Complainant does
not respect her authority and often tries to intimidate her.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.

0120141723

5
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).

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
0120141723

6
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, Director
Office of Federal Operations

January 29, 2016
Date