[Redacted], Candi R., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 11, 2022Appeal No. 2021004272 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 11, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Candi R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021004272 Hearing No. 510-2019-00280X Agency No. 4K-290-0062-18 DECISION On July 22, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s July 1, 2021 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier, R-01, at the Agency’s Sandhills Station in Columbia, South Carolina. On July 21, 2018 (and subsequently amended), Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), disability (physical and mental), and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) when: 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. 2021004272 2 1. On or about February 27, 2018, after returning to duty with required medical documentation, management deemed the documentation insufficient, and she was not permitted to work until March 30, 2018; 2. On June 15, 2018, she was informed that the V-neck shirt she was wearing was not appropriate for work and she was required to leave work and change into another shirt that was deemed appropriate for work; and 3. On August 1, 2018, when she submitted medical documentation to be off work until August 4, 2018, her Acting Supervisor stated that her documentation was not valid, refused to approve her leave, and asked her to reveal confidential medical information to him. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the matter issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, as to Claim 1, Complainant was instructed to cure the defect in her documentation and when she did, she returned to work. The AJ noted Complainant conceded that her union steward told her that the Agency was entitled to the documentation that it sought. Regarding Claim 2, management had made clear to Complainant what type of attire the Agency found inappropriate, yet she chose to wear a v-neck shirt that management deemed inappropriate. Complainant went to her car and came back to the facility wearing a coat over her blouse. Complainant’s supervisor reasoned that it was questionable whether Complainant intended to deliver her route in June in South Carolina with a coat on. Thus, she reasonably told Complainant that the coat was unacceptable, and she should change her attire. Finally, regarding Claim 3, the Acting Supervisor stated that he was familiar with medical notes from the VA and was genuinely confused by the note that Complainant submitted because it appeared to deviate from his recollection of how VA operated. Complainant believed that the Acting Supervisor was acting in concert with other officials when he asked her questions concerning her medical documentation, but she presented no evidence to support her supposition. While Complainant believed that the questions were intrusive and refused to answer, management did nothing further. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. 2021004272 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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 rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency officials in this matter harbored discriminatory or retaliatory animus or that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by the officials were pretext for unlawful discrimination or reprisal. Furthermore, the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a legally hostile work environment. The evidentiary record reflects that the alleged incidents were more likely the result of routine supervision, managerial discipline, and general workplace disputes and tribulations. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. CONCLUSION Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was subjected to discrimination or harassment as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 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: 2021004272 4 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. 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. 2021004272 5 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 11, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation