[Redacted], Dino B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 23, 2022

Appeal No. 2021002726 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 23, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Dino B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021002726 Hearing No. 451201800165X Agency No. 4V415000118 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s February 9, 2021, Final Order concerning an 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Automotive Mechanic, Level 8, at the McAllen Vehicle Maintenance Facility ("VMF") in McAllen, Texas. On December 20, 2017, Complainant filed a Formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency on the bases of age (59) and reprisal (protected EEO activity related to the instant complaint) when: 1. On July 7, 2017, he was issued a Notice of 7-day suspension, 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. 2021002726 2 2. On December 21, 2017, he was accused of leaving a battery loose in a motor vehicle for which he was given a pre-disciplinary interview on January 11, 208, and subsequently issued a 14-day suspension on January 17, 2018. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (“ROI”) 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 notified the parties sua sponte of an intent to issue a decision without a hearing. The Agency filed a response, but Complainant failed to do so. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, citing the ROI, the Agency’s unchallenged response, and incorporating the January 8, 2021 Notice of Proposed Summary Judgment by reference. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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 animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Here, the AJ explained that summary judgement was appropriate because the responsible Agency officials articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons, supported by evidence, for the alleged discriminatory actions and Complainant offered no response that would indicate that these reasons were pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory intent. Specifically, each Notice of Suspension identified a number of performance deficiencies and safety violations committed by Complainant. The Agency’s supporting evidence included copies of the relevant disciplinary and safety policies, photographic documentation of the violations, and signed witness statements by both management and craft employees. In some instances, Complainant’s own statements 2021002726 3 provided at the time the suspensions were issued supported the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, such as acknowledging that he did not follow instructions. The ROI includes evidence that Complainant was aware of the safety policies when he violated them, and that he was notified of performance deficiencies and provided opportunities and instructions to correct them yet declined to do so. Although Complainant identified several younger co-workers who he believed were treated more favorably, the Agency offered ample evidence that these co-workers were not similarly situated to Complainant, and therefore cannot be considered to support his discrimination claim. The ROI also contains grievance documents challenging the suspensions, ultimately resulting in the Agency mitigating them to less severe disciplinary actions. However, these grievance records do not indicate any underlying discriminatory or retaliatory motivation for the original notices of suspension. We conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Complainant did not respond to the Agency’s evidence and legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons when provided the opportunity by the AJ and did not provide any statement or evidence on appeal. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 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: 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). 2021002726 4 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. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. 2021002726 5 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 February 23, 2022 Date