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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2021000784 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Golden L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021000784 Hearing No. 450-2020-00216X Agency No. 4G-752-0323-19 DECISION On November 11, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s October 28, 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. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Letter Carrier at the Agency’s Juanita Craft Station in Dallas, Texas. On November 8, 2019, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her based on sex (female) when, on August 8, 2019, she was assaulted by a postal customer and management did not provide the proper safety measures. 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). The AJ assigned to the case issued a Notice of Assignment and Proposed Summary Judgment on August 25, 2020. 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. 2021000784 2 Complainant responded to the Notice of Intent. On October 14, 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. 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). 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. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during the investigation established the following undisputed facts. 2021000784 3 During the relevant period, Complainant has worked as a City Letter Carrier at the Agency’s Juanita Craft Station for over six years. The Supervisor Customer Service was Complainant’s supervisor. A review of the Dallas Police Department Incident Report dated August 8, 2019, indicated that a postal customer physically assaulted Complainant while on her route. Complainant was punched, scratched and maced by the customer and sustained minor injuries. Two Dallas Police Department (DPD) Officers responded to the disturbance with an ambulance. In the report, the Officers stated that the customer became upset with Complainant when she did not respond to a compliment. The customer became verbally aggressive and began physically assaulting Complainant scratching her, punching her on the upper body and face, and pulling her hair. A male carrier who was contacted by Complainant attempted to intervene. The Officers noted that during the confrontation the customer picked up Complainant’s telephone and entered a building. Complainant and the other carrier entered the building to retrieve the property and Complainant was again confronted and physically assaulted. The customer pulled a small container of mace from the male carrier’s belt and sprayed Complainant and the male carrier on their face and body. The Officers detained the customer while the Dallas Fire Department treated both Complainant and the male carrier at the scene. The report indicated that the customer was believed to suffer from mental disorders. She was transported to jail. Complainant claimed that during the incident she attempted to call management twice but there was no answer. Complainant stated that when she was able to get into her phone, she called the supervisor. She stated that the supervisor “brutally assaulted” her on the phone when she instructed her not to hit the postal customer back. The supervisor, however, asserted that she did not “brutally assault” Complainant. She stated at that time, she was working the Window Service at the Juanita Craft Station. The supervisor stated that when she returned to her desk, she answered the phone and Complainant yelled and cursed her why she did not answer the phone. She stated that Complainant yelled a street location when her phone was cut off. The supervisor stated that she immediately notified the Manager, Customer Service regarding the situation. The supervisor further stated that it took her approximately 20-25 minutes to arrive at the scene. She stated that when she arrived at the scene, Complainant was inside a youth center washing her face. The supervisor stated that she spoke with Complainant and asked her what happened. She also asked Complainant if she wanted to go to the hospital but she declined. Thereafter, the supervisor contacted the US Postal Inspectors regarding the incident. The supervisor averred that she was not sure if the Postal Police conducted an investigation and was not aware of Complainant’s dissatisfaction with how they handled the case. 2021000784 4 In his decision, the AJ noted that Complainant’s claims arise from the unfortunate incident of August 8, 2019, involving Complainant and a postal customer without any affiliation with the Agency. Specifically, Complainant was performing her duties delivering mail. The customer accused Complainant of failing to return/reciprocate compliments the customer gave to her. After the verbal interaction, the customer attacked Complainant. The AJ further noted that Complainant was on the telephone with her co-worker who showed up on the scene and attempted to intervene and was also attacked. At that time, the male carrier called the police who responded to the scene to complete police reports and arrested the customer. Subsequently, the Postal Police responded and completed an investigation. On Complainant’s behalf, the union filed a grievance which resulted in compensating Complainant for personal property which was damaged in the attack. Complainant also filed a claim for worker’s compensation. We agree with the AJ that Complainant’s theory of discrimination was not clear. Complainant claimed that management does not like female employees and failed to guarantee her safety. However, the AJ correctly determined that Complainant did not provide any evidence that the Agency was aware of threats against her in a manner that would have allowed intervention. In addition, the AJ determined that Complainant failed “to identify any safety precautions that she could have been provided to prevent the attack and, more importantly, Complainant fails to establish that these precautions were afforded to men yet denied to her based on her sex. As a result of failing to meet her burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, her claim fails and summary judgment is proper.” Here, the undisputed facts fully support the AJ’s determination that the responsible management officials clearly articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Complainant did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext designed to mask discrimination. 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 (M0620) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the 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. 2021000784 5 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, 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. 2021000784 6 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 January 8, 2021 Date