Micha T.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 21, 20160120143273 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 21, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Micha T.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120143273 Agency No. 1J607002514 DECISION On September 20, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s August 25, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Operations Industrial Engineer (Field) at the Agency’s Chicago Processing and Distribution Center in Chicago, Illinois. On May 22, 2013, Complainant began an extended absence from work because of “stress.” On December 17 and 18, 2013, Complainant reported to work but was ordered to leave because she had not provided documentation the Agency deemed necessary for her to return to duty. On February 23, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), color (black), disability (stress condition), age (59), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 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. 0120143273 2 1. On December 17 and 18, 2013, Complainant reported to work, was told to go home, and her leave was input as AWOL; 2. On December 26, 2013, Complainant received a Notice of Proposed Removal for Failure to Follow Postal Service Leave Procedures dated November 14, 2013; and 3. On January 24, 2014, Complainant became aware that her request for a lateral transfer had not been approved. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) 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 in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally 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 Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No, 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995). 0120143273 3 Claim #1 (Sent Home, Charged AWOL) The Agency explains that Complainant was sent home and placed on Absent Without Leave status because she failed to produce medical documentation showing her fitness for duty upon her return to work following a long absence. ROI at 422. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s actions. Complainant failed to prove that the Agency’s reason for its action was a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #2 (Proposed Removal) According to the Agency, Complainant was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal because she had been absent from work for more than six months without adequate explanation. Management had repeatedly requested that she supply medical documentation showing that her inability to report to work was the result of a medical condition, which she failed to provide. ROI at 397. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s actions. Complainant does not dispute that she failed to submit the medical documentation requested by the Agency. Complainant failed to prove that the Agency’s reason for its action was a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. Claim #3 (Transfer Request Denied) The Agency explains that Complainant’s request for a lateral transfer to an Operations Industrial Engineer EAS-23 position at the Chicago International Service Center was denied because Agency policy prohibited filling positions at the EAS-20 level and above by lateral transfer. According to the Agency, vacancies in such positions must be filled competitively. For this reason, Complainant’s request to laterally transfer into the vacant position was denied. Complainant was offered the opportunity to compete for the position but declined. ROI at 557. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s actions. Complainant does not dispute that Agency policy prohibited the lateral transfer she requested. Complainant failed to prove that the Agency’s reason for its action was a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus. 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. 0120143273 4 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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. The requests 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 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. 0120143273 5 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 October 21, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation