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 (Headquarters - Postal Inspection Service), Agency. Appeal No. 2020004675 Hearing Nos. 570-2017-01496X & 570-2019-00460X Agency Nos. 66-000-0014-14 & 66-000-0008-15 DECISION On May 30, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s May 13, 2020 final order concerning the above-referenced equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaints 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postal Inspector, EAS-23, for the Washington D.C. Inspection Service at the Processing and Distribution Center in Dulles, Virginia. Complainant filed two formal EEO complaints (Agency No. 66-000-0014-14 (Complaint 1)2 and Agency No. 66-000-0008-15 (Complaint 2) alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), sex 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. 2 The Agency initially dismissed Complaint 1 for failure to state a claim, but in Livia C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 012015502 (Nov. 23, 2016), the Commission reversed the dismissal and ordered the Agency to process the complaint after finding that Complainant had not been made aware of the 15-day time limit for filing a complaint. 2020004675 2 (female), color (Black), disability (mild medial PFJ space narrowing; idiopathic anioedema), age (43), and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) when: 1. On June 20, 2014, Complainant’s Team Leader (TL) effectively denied her a reasonable accommodation by notifying her that he could no longer find work for her on light duty and told her that she was responsible for finding work for herself; 2. On June 20, 2014, TL harassed and threatened Complainant via email and telephone calls; 3. On July 9, 2014, Complainant’s work hours were changed; 4. On August 5, 2014, Complainant reported harassment to the Deputy Chief Inspector (DCI) who failed to take remedial action; 5. On September 25, 2014, management denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation by telling her that no work was available and sending her home on leave without pay (LWOP); 6. On February 25, 2015, Complainant became aware that the Health and Resource Management Analyst and her manager mishandled and delayed the submission of Complainant’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) paperwork between December 2014 and February 2015; 7. On an unspecified date, Complainant became aware that the Agency did not submit her CA-2 form to OWCP for processing, which was provided to them on August 28, 2014; 8. On June 30, 2014, management failed to properly maintain Complainant’s medical documentation confidentiality when the documentation was left on a public fax machine; and 9. On an unspecified date, management disclosed information about Complainant’s complaint. The Agency investigated each complaint separately, and at the conclusion of the investigations, presented Complainant with copies of the investigative reports and notified her of her right to request hearings before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested hearings and the AJ assigned to the matters subsequently consolidated the complaints. On May 11, 2020, the AJ granted the Agency’s April 5, 2020 motion and issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency thereupon issued its final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. 2020004675 3 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. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 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 discriminated or retaliated against by the Agency as alleged. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final order, because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence 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. 2020004675 4 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. 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. 2020004675 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 October 25, 2021 Date
