[Redacted], Amy B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002922 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Amy B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002922 Agency No. 1J-461-0077-19 DECISION On March 28, 2020, 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 March 11, 2020 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. The Commission’s review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the final decision. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a full-time Mail Handler, M-04, at the Indianapolis Processing and Distribution Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Complainant claimed that from May 2019 through November 2019, she was denied several upward mobility opportunities. Complainant claimed that she requested on several occasions to serve as an acting supervisor and in other detail assignments to several management officials. Complainant claimed that she spoke to the Senior Plant Manager (SPM) in August 2019 about a promotion and he mentioned her attendance. Complainant claimed that Agency officials offered opportunities to other employees even though they knew she was interested. 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. 2020002922 2 On September 17, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian), disability (back impairment), and age (52) when, from May 17, 2019, she was denied upward mobility opportunities.2 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 EEOC 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. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Disparate Treatment 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, 802 (1973). The first step would generally be to 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 Const. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the Agency articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions. See U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983). Specifically, the Lead Senior Manager of Distribution Operations (LSM) affirmed that each tour’s manager assigns acting supervisors on their tour of duty. LSM stated that on one occasion, the tour needed someone to supervise the flat sorter while the regular supervisor was on leave. LSM was told that a co-worker (CW1) knew the operation on the day shift where she worked. Thus, CW1 served in that opportunity. Further, LSM confirmed that another co-worker was already in an acting supervisor when he came to the plant in July 2018 and she was selected as a supervisor thereafter. LSM noted additionally that at the time of Complainant’s request to him for developmental opportunities, management had been given instructions that detail assignments were canceled by the District Manager. LSM denied providing any other developmental opportunities during the time frame. SPM stated that Complainant stopped him on the workroom floor once and asked him about promotion opportunities. SPM asserted that he directed her to the Senior Manager of Distribution Operations because he did not appoint initial-level or acting supervisors. 2 The Agency dismissed Complainant’s claims occurring before May 2019 as untimely raised with an EEO Counselor. Complainant raised no challenges to the dismissal of these claims on appeal and the Commission can find no basis to disturb the Agency’s decision in that regard. 2020002922 3 At all times, the ultimate burden remains with Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's reasons were not the real reasons and that the Agency acted on the basis of discriminatory animus. Complainant does not carry her burden here. Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant has not presented sufficient argument or evidence to establish that the Agency's explanations for its actions were pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivations. As a result, we find that Complainant was not subjected to any unlawful discrimination as alleged. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety, 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 (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. 2020002922 4 An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 September 2, 2021 Date