[Redacted], Barbara R., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 26, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002508 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 26, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Barbara R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002508 Hearing No. 450-2019-00319X Agency No. 4G-000-0001-19 DECISION 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 January 9, 2020, final order 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Senior Budget and Financial Analyst at the Agency’s facility in Dallas, Texas. On January 3, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of her race (Asian), national origin (Filipino), sex (female), color (brown), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on or around September 7, 2018, management issued her a letter of warning in lieu of a fourteen-day time off suspension. 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. 2020002508 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on January 3, 2020, finding no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant reiterates her contention that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final 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). 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 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003). After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially 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 Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). 2020002508 3 To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Here, we concur with the AJ’s finding that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on all alleged bases, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the record shows that Complainant was assigned the duty of allocating the FY 2019 budget for non-personnel and other-personnel by her supervisor (S1). The record further shows that, despite “detailed, specific instructions” given both verbally and in writing, her work contained errors that required S1 to reassign the budget to another employee. In response to Complainant’s failure to complete her assigned duties, S1 issued her a letter of warning in lieu of a 14-day time off suspension, dated September 7, 2018, for failure to follow instructions. In the letter of warning, S1 states that Complainant’s work had been “consistently unreliable” and regularly contained “obvious errors”, and that despite “coaching, guidance and opportunities for improvement” her performance impeded S1’s “ability to improve operational efficiencies.” The record shows that prior to receiving the discipline at issue, Complainant had previously been issued a letter of warning for unsatisfactory performance/unacceptable conduct and a letter of warning in lieu of a 7-day time off suspension for unacceptable management performance. We find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus, or that the Agency’s articulated reasons for the issuance of the letter of warning were pretextual. CONCLUSION We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ’s decision and the Agency’s final order is AFFIRMED. 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. 2020002508 4 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. 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. 2020002508 5 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 January 26, 2021 Date