Maxima C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 18, 20180120170845 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 18, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Maxima C.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120170845 Agency No. 1F921001016 DECISION On December 30, 2016, 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 December 2, 2016, 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. ISSUES PRESENTED Whether Complainant was discriminated against based in reprisal (prior EEO activity) when: 1) management refused to provide her with the proper paperwork in order for her to file an injury report; and 2) she was told that there was no work available within her restrictions and she was sent home. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Lead Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Margaret Sellers Processing and Distribution Center facility in San Diego, California. S1, the Acting Supervisor Distribution Operations, was Complainant’s supervisor during the relevant timeframe. 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. 0120170845 2 S2, Supervisor Distribution Operations, was her second level supervisor. Complainant testified that she sustained a job-related injury sometime before December 24, 2015, but did not provide medical documentation. Complainant stated that she provided S1 and S2 with medical documentation from her physician restricting her weight lifting to 5 pounds and pushing/pulling to 10 pounds but that S1 rejected the work limitations. Complainant asserted that S2, after reviewing her limited duty medical documents, told her that she did not qualify for the documents for work-related job injuries because she did not notify her supervisor as soon as the incident occurred and she could not prove that her injury was work-related. Complainant disagreed with management's reasons and explained to S2 that she was not aware of the severity of her injury until the next day. Although she was later provided the documents, Complainant claimed that she was still denied work for two to three weeks, even though work was available. Complainant indicated that she did not recall when she first requested the paperwork but noted that she requested, in writing, job duties within her medical limitations. Complainant testified that her EEO activity was a factor because S2 works for S3, who previously targeted her for harassment. Claim 1: S1 testified that Complainant did not request injury compensation forms from him, but that he later became aware of Complainant’s request for the forms. According to S1, Complainant was provided the forms that she requested. S1 denied that he refused to provide Complainant any needed forms and was not aware of any other person denying her forms. He stated that had he been aware of Complainant’s request for the forms, he would have assisted her earlier. S2 stated that Complainant’s responses in Form (CA-2) arrived on his desk in January 2016, but he had to return it to Complainant because it was incomplete. He noted that Complainant claimed she was injured in 2007 or 2009. He also stated that Complainant’s prior EEO activity was not a factor regarding this issue. Claim 2: S1 denied that he was a decision maker regarding Complainant receiving only 8 hours of work during the timeframe at issue. He maintained that he was unaware that Complainant claimed to have an injury or that she was looking for specific work to accommodate a medical condition. S1 provided, and the record evidence confirmed, that Complainant was on sick leave from December 16, 2015 through January 21, 2016. All of the leave requests were approved by S1. S2 also denied that he was a decision maker regarding Complainant only receiving 8 hours of work during this timeframe. S3, Manager, Distribution Operations, was the Mail Processing Lead for Tour 3 during the relevant timeframe. She testified that Complainant was not on limited duty during this time. She claimed that Complainant requested work within her medical restrictions and was told that because her injury was off the job, she needed to request light duty. S3 claimed that Complainant chose to use her leave rather than apply for light duty. 0120170845 3 S3 maintained that Complainant’s supervisor should have communicated with her regarding this matter. S3 denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity was a factor. S3 noted that employees may voluntarily submit a written request for light duty, supported by appropriate medical documentation, to the installation head. 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. 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. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL The parties did not provide statements 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 absent direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must satisfy the evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing 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. 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, 441 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reason proffered by the Agency was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). 0120170845 4 To meet her ultimate burden of proving that the Agency’s actions are discriminatory, Complainant needs to demonstrate such “weaknesses, implausibility, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the [Agency’s] proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence.” Evelyn S. v. Dep’t of Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160132 (Sept. 14, 2017). Assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as set forth above. Both S1 and S2 testified that they never denied the appropriate paperwork to Complainant. According to S1, Complainant was ultimately provided the forms that she requested. S2, specifically, stated that Complainant’s responses in Form (CA-2) arrived on his desk in January 2016, but he had to return it to Complainant because it was incomplete. With respect to claim 2, S3 stated that Complainant was not on limited duty during this time because her injury was off the job. As such, she needed to request light duty, but, according to S3, Complainant chose to use her leave rather than apply for light duty. S1, S2, and S3 all testified that Complainant’s prior EEO activity played no role in its decisions. Complainant, both in the record and on appeal, did not provide any persuasive contradictory evidence that would establish that the Agency’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.2 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. 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. 2 As Complainant did not request a hearing, we do not have the benefit of an Administrative Judge’s credibility determinations after a hearing; therefore, we can only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented to us. 0120170845 5 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. 0120170845 6 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 December 18, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation