Mirtha H.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 3, 20160120141088 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 3, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mirtha H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120141088 Hearing No. 520-2014-00008X Agency No. 4B-040-0006-13 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated January 9, 2014, finding no discrimination with regard to her 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, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In her complaint, dated March 26, 2013, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (Native American), religion (Native American), and sex (female) when on December 29, 2012, she was put on Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty Status and subsequently, on January 3, 2013, she was issued a notice of removal for violation(s) of Postal Service Standards of Conduct. Upon completion of the investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On January 3, 2014, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. 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. 0120141088 2 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists. We find that a decision without a hearing was appropriate in this case. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. During the relevant time period at issue, Complainant was a Rural Carrier, 2325-01 (PS-01) at the Gorham Post Office, Brownfield, Maine. Specifically, Complainant’s postmaster indicated that on December 20, 2012, two employees reported to him that Complainant may have been under the influence of alcohol while she was sorting her mail at the facility due to smelling alcohol on her breath. Since Complainant was already delivering the mail on her route, stated the postmaster, he contacted a local county police officer about the matter. The postmaster indicated that the local police officer located Complainant but determined she did not appear to be under the influence and, thus, he allowed her to continue on her route. The record indicates that the postmaster reported the foregoing incident to an identified postal inspector. A few minutes later, the postmaster indicated that Complainant, believing an identified coworker told the postmaster that she was under the influence of alcohol, described above, called her immediate supervisor and threatened to meet the coworker in the parking lot so she could “kick her ass.” Complainant later acknowledged calling the supervisor but indicated that she only said she was going to confront the coworker. After receiving Complainant’s threat via the supervisor, stated the postmaster, he contacted the postal inspector concerning the situation. 0120141088 3 After receiving the postmaster’s foregoing report, the inspector went to the area that Complainant was last delivering her route. When the inspector asked about the threat she made, Complainant stated that she called the supervisor that he could not finish her route. The inspector stated that since Complainant could not finish her route and she had to leave her postal vehicle on the route so another employee could finish her route, she collected all her personal belongings from her postal vehicle in a plastic bag. The inspector indicated that he and the postmaster drove Complainant back to the post office and upon arriving at the postmaster’s office, the inspector found an open vodka bottle which was three fourths empty in the plastic bag that she carried out from her postal vehicle. The inspector indicated that Complainant acknowledged that she purchased the vodka a day before on December 19, 2012, at a store on her route but she did not drink it in her postal vehicle. The inspector stated that Complainant later told him that she did not purchase the vodka during her route but she stopped at the store after work. We note that Complainant does not explain why she had the vodka bottle in her postal vehicle in violation of the Agency’s policy. Based on the foregoing, the postmaster indicated that he placed Complainant on Emergency Placement status on December 20, 2012, pending the outcome of a preliminary investigation of the incidents. The postmaster also stated that when he called Complainant about the Emergency Placement, she told him “now I know why people go postal.” The record indicates that the postal inspector conducted the investigation of the December 20, 2012 incidents and submitted his report dated January 2, 2013. After a review of the postal inspector’s investigation report, the postmaster issued Complainant the notice of removal dated January 3, 2013, effective February 6, 2013, due to her violation of postal service standards of conduct, discharge of duties, behavior and personal habits, intoxicating beverages, and violent and/or threatening behavior, described above. Therein, the postmaster indicated that he also considered Complainant’s November 8, 2011 letter of warning due to her failure to follow instructions. We agree with the AJ that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. We also find that Complainant failed to show that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. 0120141088 4 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. 0120141088 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 March 3, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation