[Redacted], Enola L.,1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 9, 2021

Appeal No. 2021001862 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 9, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Enola L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021001862 Hearing No. 430-2020-00205X Agency No. 1K-231-0049-19 DECISION On January 25, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s December 22, 2020 final action 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., 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 During the period at issue, Complainant worked as Supervisor, Distribution Operations, at the Agency’s Richmond Processing and Distribution Center in Sandston, Virginia. On August 27, 2019, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency subjected her to discriminatory harassment based on race (African-American), religion (Islam), disability (brain injury), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity (Agency Nos. 4K-230-0230-08; 1K-231-0096-15; and 1K-230-0019-12) 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. 2021001862 2 1. on March 18, 2019, she was removed from doing Time and Attendance; 2. from March 18, 2019 and continuing, management spoke to her disrespectfully in front of other employees and questioned her about her overtime usage; 3. on June 6, 2019, she was called into the manager’s office for a discussion; 4. on June 22, 2019, while she was on vacation, management moved her workspace and scattered employee files and her belongings everywhere; 5. on July 9, 2019, she realized her Enterprise Resource Management System (“ERMS”) computer access had been taken; and 6. on July 24, 2019, she was chastised for changing a report out of a finalized stage to an “un-finalized” stage. After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the investigative file, and Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Thereafter, the Agency submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment Without a Hearing. Complainant did not respond to the motion. On December 18, 2020, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency thereafter issued the instant final action implementing the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. 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. 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 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. 2021001862 3 To prove her harassment/hostile work environment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis - in this case, her race, religion, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of these elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). See also, Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). Due to medical restrictions arising out of a February 22, 2017 work-related accident when she fell backwards and struck a floor, Complainant was unable to work on the workroom floor in her position as Supervisor, Distribution Operations. Management witnesses stated that Complainant was removed from her time and attendance duties as a result of a decision by the Richmond District to send the Attendance Control Officer to Richmond P&DC for full-time assistance with time and attendance due to poor employee availability issues within the P&DC. The Manager, In Plant Support (White, Lutheran, over 40) explained that on June 6, 2019, she asked Complainant, her representative, and the Senior Manager into her office to discuss Complainant’s new duties, as well as the issue of professionalism. She informed Complainant that she would to report to the Senior Manager and gave her a list of new duties she would be responsible for. The Manager stated that she also indicated during this meeting that she understood Complainant may need to vent to her co-workers at time, but reminded her that she should not do so in open areas where she could be overheard. Manager further stated that if Complainant needed to speak with someone privately, she could use her office. Further, the Manager confirmed that she was instructed to make space for additional employees to the work area, to be completed by June 22, 2019. Complainant asserted that her files were scattered. The Manager, however stated that Complainant’s files were stacked on a conference table while maintenance employees moved her desk and filing cabinets. In addition, the Manager noted that Complainant was not the only employee who had a workplace moved and that two named employees also had their workspaces relocated that day. Moreover, the Manager stated that on June 12, 2019, a Postal Service Headquarters Mail and Information Systems Specialist sent an email to Richmond P&DC management, including the Manager, notifying them that the Richmond P&DC Informed Visibility Employee Scheduler (“IVES”) report had been “un-finalized” by Complainant. Thereafter, the Manager emailed Complainant asking why she had “un-finalized” the report which was within her managerial discretion. The Manager, Labor Relations (LR) (African-American, Christian, over 40) confirmed that Complainant’s ERMS access was taken, due to his audit for the District. 2021001862 4 Specifically, the Manager, LR asked management in what capacity does Complainant need ERMS and it was discovered that Complainant needed some access but not as much as previous access to ERMS. He stated that management identified which pay locations Complainant needed access which she currently has to perform her duties. In sum, after careful consideration of all Complainant’s allegations and the evidence of record, there is adequate support for the AJ’s determination that the responsible management officials clearly articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the disputed actions. Beyond her bare assertions, Complainant has simply provided no evidence to support her claims that her treatment was the result of her race, religion, disability, age and prior protected activity. Here, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the supervisors involved were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 019982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s final action, implementing the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination. 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 2021001862 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. 2021001862 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 June 9, 2021 Date