[Redacted], Arica C., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 14, 2021Appeal No. 2020002985 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 14, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Arica C.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002985 Agency No. 4K-300-0263-18 DECISION On April 2, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s February 4, 2020 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. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Sales, Service & Distribution at the Agency’s Duluth, Georgia Post Office. On October 16, 2018, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her based on race (African-American) and color (Black) when: 1. on or about June 30, 2018, she was placed on Emergency Placement in an off-duty without pay status; 2. on or about July 3, 2018, her work hours and work location were changed; and 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. 2020002985 2 3. on or about August 8, 2018, she was issued a Notice of Removal dated August 8, 2018, with an effective date of September 8, 2018. The Agency accepted the formal complaint and, on February 4, 2020, issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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 in this case, however, since 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). After careful review of the record, we conclude that management witnesses have provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the actions in question. Regarding claim 1, Complainant asserted that on or about June 30, 2018, she was placed on Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty without pay status. She claimed that a named Mail Processing Clerk (Clerk) called the Manager, Post Office Operations and told her side of the story, after which the Manager instructed the Postmaster to place Complainant off the clock. Complainant stated that management only listened to Clerk’s version. She also asserted that her race and color were factors because Clerk and Manager are both Caucasians and are close friends. The Postmaster (African-American, black) stated that he placed Complainant on Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty without pay status after she assaulted the Clerk. Specifically, the Postmaster maintained that Complainant pushed the Clerk into an empty piece of mail equipment and that two employees witnessed the incident. The Postmaster stated that according to the two witnesses, the Clerk “did nothing to the Complainant. Since Complainant was the aggressor management had no choice but take action against her violent act against [Clerk].” Thereafter, Complainant filed a grievance on this issue, claiming that the Clerk should have been placed on Emergency Placement but, “I don’t believe what [Complainant] stated is accurate facts.”2 2 As a result of Complainant’s grievance, she received back pay for the time she missed at work. 2020002985 3 Complainant’s asserted that the Clerk was treated more favorably than she was, as the Clerk was allowed to stay on the clock, did not receive an investigation interview, and did not receive a letter placing her on Emergency Placement. The Postmaster stated, however, that Clerk 1 “did nothing to the Complainant. She was assaulted.” The Supervisor, Customer Service (African-American, black) explained that Complainant was involved in an altercation with another employee “which is against the USPS Zero Tolerance Policy.” The record contains a copy of statement dated July 3, 2018 by a Rural Carrier in which she witnessed the incident between Complainant and the Clerk. She stated that Complainant was talking to a named Mail Processing Clerk and “when [Complainant] turned around from talking to [Mail Processing Clerk], [Clerk] then asked [Complainant] ‘please stop talking about me!’ [Complainant] then responded rudely ‘B***h I can talk about who I want to talk about.’ [Clerk] then proceeded with response to say ‘I just asked you to stop talking about me.’ [Complainant] then becomes aggressive and says, ‘what are you [going to] do about it?’ Almost as if provoking [Clerk]. [Clerk] stands her ground and keeps her composure. [Complainant] walks up to [Clerk] and gets in her face. I then hear [Clerk] yell, ‘Get out of my face!’ [Complainant] does not move, instead she was then chest bumping [Clerk]. [Clerk] puts her hand up to [Complainant] asking her to move, in which [Complainant] refuses. [Complainant] then shoves [Clerk] extremely hard into the BMC [Bulk Mail Container]. [Clerk] stumbles and falls into the BMC, and catches her balance. Then [Clerk] notified the police.” The record also contains a copy of statement dated June 30, 2018, in which another Rural Carrier [Rural Carrier 2] stated that around 6:50 a.m. “as I was walking towards the parcel area I noticed [Clerk] and [Complainant] were in a heated verbal disagreement. I saw both of them hollering ‘leave me alone’ and ‘get away from me[.]’ I noticed [Clerk] wasn’t as aggressive as [Complainant] though. [Complainant] walked up in [Clerk’s] face then she pushed her with both hands on her chest. [Clerk] walked away to the clerk’s office, and called the police.” Regarding claim 2, Complainant alleged that on or about July 3, 2018, her work hours and work location were changed. The Postmaster acknowledged that Complainant was given a new schedule and “was sent to the Boggs Rd Postal Service temporarily to prevent her from committing further violent acts on the employees who witnessed the incident.” He also noted the change in Complainant’s work hours and work location was “to prevent Complainant from working in the same building as [Clerk].” The Supervisor, Customer Service stated that the location change “was due to the situation between [Complainant] and [Clerk]. It had escalated to the point where it became physical in nature and to prevent any further escalation, the participants were separated. The work hours were changed because the Postal Store’s hours are only from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.” Regarding claim 3, Complainant alleged that on or about August 8, 2018, she was issued a Notice of Removal dated August 8, 2018, with an effective date of September 8, 2018. 2020002985 4 The supervisor stated that before issuing Complainant the August 8, 2018 Notice of Removal, she conducted a Pre-Disciplinary Interview with Complainant regarding the charges. She noted that Complainant acknowledged pushing the Clerk. The supervisor also noted that Complainant did not exhibit acceptable behavior and the Notice of Removal was issued to Complainant based on Improper Conduct and Violation of Zero Tolerance Policy.3 The weight of the evidence does not establish that the reasons proffered by management for the actions taken against Complainant were pretextual or that Complainant’s race or color played any role in the incidents referenced in her complaint. While it appears Complainant had a contentious relationship with some co-workers and disagreed with a number of management decisions, the evidence does not support a finding that her race and/or color was involved. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding no discrimination 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 3 As a result of a grievance settlement, the August 8, 2018 Notice of Removal was reduced to a 7- day paper suspension. 2020002985 5 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. 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. 2020002985 6 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 January 14, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation