0120160021
10-03-2016
Micha T.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.
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
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160021
Agency No. 6Z-000-0004-15
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's August 17, 2015 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
In 1983, Complainant was hired to work at the Agency's Northern Transportation CMT in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In 1991, Complainant was appointed as a Manager of the Transportation Contracts Office under Level 1 contracting authority, and was later appointed as a Manager under Level III contracting authority.
On April 1, 2015, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Hispanic), national origin (Puerto Rican), sex (female), disability, and age (over 40) when:
on January 23, 2015, she was notified that her contracting authority was reduced from Level III to Level I, and subsequently, on January 24, 2015, she was told that she had "no authority to bind the Postal Service."
After the investigation of the formal complaint, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of the investigation and with a notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence. Complainant did not respond.
On August 17, 2015, the Agency issued the instant final decision finding no discrimination. The Agency found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race, national origin, sex, disability, and age discrimination. The Agency further found that assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of race, national origin, sex, disability, and age discrimination, Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action which Complainant failed to show were a pretext.
Complainant, on appeal, argues that while she met the requirements for Level 1 contracting authority, the record "reflects that no other employee under [Manager, Transportation Portfolio (Manager)'s] supervision had their contracting authority reduced, much less taken away...it is also evidenced in the record that as of March 03, 2015, at least three other contracting officers under [Manager's] allegedly had not completed the 21 hours of formal purchase training required for the period of January 2014-December 2014, to comply with the continuing professional regulation 7-1.6."
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Manager, also Complainant's supervisor, was the deciding official to reduce Complainant's contracting authority from Level III to Level I. The Manager stated that Complainant "had not documented training to support her existing Level III warrant authority, nor had she submitted a plan to fill the identified training gaps. She also failed to document and submit the required 21 hours for 2014 in continuing coursework in purchasing."
With respect to Complainant's allegation that the Manager told her she had no authority to bind the Postal Service, the Manager acknowledged it. Specifically, the Manager stated that Complainant "did not have the authority to execute contractual matters on behalf of the Postal Service."
The Manager stated that in regard to Complainant's assertions that she provided coursework and documentation that fulfilled the requirements to retain her contracting authority, such an assertion was not accurate. The Manager stated that Complainant "did not demonstrate 32 hours of coursework related to either Project Management or Advanced Strategic issues." The Manager stated "no other employee under my supervision failed to meet the training requirements. All other employees where I identified gaps in their training developed and executed plans to fill the gaps and secure the required training."
Furthermore, the Manager stated that Complainant's race, national origin, sex, disability, and age were not factors in her decision to reduce Complainant's contracting authority from Level III to Level 1.
The Manager, Surface Transportation CMS (Manager 2) stated that the Manager reduced Complainant's contracting authority because she did not meet the contracting requirements for her Level III authority. Manager 2 stated that on February 4, 2014, the Supply Management Infrastructure requested that all contracting officers (COs) document their initial training "considered by appointing officials at the time of their appointment. The instructions stated that if the previously submitted training was not available that the CO's should document how they meet the training required in each subject area as listed in the Supplying Principles and Practices, section 7-1.4." Manager 2 stated that the deadline for contracting officers to submit the required information was February 21, 2014. Manager 2 stated that the Manager reviewed the documentation submitted by contracting officers, including Complainant, and noted that Complainant along with other contracting officers had "gaps in the required training, were given the opportunity to remediate the issue by taking courses that fulfilled the requirements."
Further, Manager 2 stated while the Manager gave Complainant until the end of the calendar year to take the required training or to provide a plane to complete the training, Complainant "made no attempt to take the training nor did she provide any plan of how she would remediate the identified gaps. To date, every CO (other than [Complainant]) has either completed the identified training or has a plan in place to complete it."
Moreover, Manager 2 stated that she did not discriminate against Complainant based on her race, national origin, sex, disability, and age.
Neither during the investigation, nor on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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.
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 3, 2016
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120160021
2
0120160021
6
0120160021