[Redacted], Hettie T., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 2, 2022

Appeal No. 2021001908 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 2, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Hettie T.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021001908 Hearing No. 443-2019-00163X Agency No. 1J-607-0049-18 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s December 18, 2020 final action 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. During the relevant time, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Maintenance Support Clerk at the Agency’s Chicago Processing and Distribution Center in Chicago, Illinois. On June 15, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination and hostile work environment by the Agency on the bases of sex, disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity (Agency No. 1J-607-0049-18, and whistleblowing activities) when: 1. On February 22, 2018 and March 1-3, 2018, Complainant was given more work than her co-workers and forced to do their work; 2. On March 1-3, 2018, Complainant was worked outside her medical restrictions; 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. 2021001908 2 3. On March 1, 2018, the manager yelled at Complainant threateningly, pointed her finger at Complainant, and watched Complainant’s every move; 4. Since on or about February 22, 2018, Complainant was denied overtime opportunities; 5. On March 1, 2018, the manager threatened to fire Complainant; 6. On March 2, 2018, Complainant was forced to do work Complainant was not trained to do; 7. Since on or around February 23, 2018, Complainant was not allowed to stay at her desk for breaks and lunch; 8. On January 30, 2018, February 1-2 and 25-26, 2018, Complainant’s leave requests were denied; 9. On February 22-23, 2018, Complainant was required to turn in a phone ledger and proof of work; 10. On March 5, 2018, Complainant was denied the opportunity to leave work early; 11. From April 29, 2018 to June 29, 2018, Complainant was not provided with the systems access necessary to perform her duties while she was on a detail’ 12. On June 20, 2018 (and effective June 29, 2018) Complainant’s detail was cancelled; 13. On June 25, 2018, Complainant was told that she could not go on a detail to another tour; 14. On June 29, 2018 and continuing, Complainant was forced to work with no access to the system, no desk with drawers, and no proper tools; 15. On or about July 11, 2018, Complainant’s computer was moved from the maintenance office and placed back in the stockroom which Complainant considered a hostile work environment; 16. On July 12, 2018 and other dates, the Manager Maintenance Operations Support (“MMOS”) subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment by waiting for Complainant at the timeclock, moving her desk next to Complainant’s, timing Complainant when she left her desk, having other employees watch Complainant, and otherwise harassing Complainant; 17. On August 2, 2018, Complainant was called into the office for an Official Discussion during which MMOS instructed Complainant to provide an updated copy of her medical 2021001908 3 documentation within 24 hours, but she then decided to send Complainant home immediately and placed Complainant in an AWOL status; 18. On August 4, 2018, Complainant became aware that her Manager sent an email to the management staff instructing them not to allow her in the building or on the clock, and that she also called the Postal Police demanding that Complainant be removed from the building; 19. On August 6, 2018, Complainant was assigned duties that violated her medical restrictions; 20. On March 1 and 4-5, 2018, July 15, 2018, and October 20, 2018, MMOS’ superiors failed to take appropriate action when Complainant notified them that MMOS was harassing Complainant; 21. On August 30, 2018, MMOS came to the stockroom to instruct Complainant to no longer lock up her phone receiver when Complainant leaves for the night, told Complainant that she could no longer have any of the bottles of water in the freezer, and threatened to write up Complainant; 22. On November 4, 2018, Complainant was notified that her Change of Schedule would not be extended, and that Complainant would have to start using her leave as needed; 23. On November 8, 2018, MMOS had the Postal Police escort Complainant out of the building, and Complainant was put on Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty Status; and 24. On August 9, 2018, Complainant was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview (“PDI”), and subsequently, on August 20, 2018, Complainant was issued a Notice of 7-Day Suspension. 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 Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final action 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. 2021001908 4 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 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 for Complainant. The AJ’s primary focus was on two separate confrontational incidents identified in claims 23 and 24. The AJ noted that while Complainant claimed the August 9, 2018 disciplinary interview was motivated by discriminatory animus, management explained the purpose of this interview was to investigate allegations of misconduct. Complainant had engaged in a conflict with a third-party local security employee which resulted in the security guard calling Postal Police. After Complainant refused to answer any questions, she was disciplined for a variety of incidents. The AJ noted that the investigation which ensued failed to evidence discrimination or retaliation. The AJ addressed yet another workplace incident on November 8, 2018, when Complainant was again removed from the workplace by postal police. The AJ noted that management ordered Complainant’s removal from the premises after failure to follow instructions, and that a confrontation followed, resulting in Complainant becoming “very upset and was cursing and yelling.” As for the remaining claims, the AJ determined that Complainant similarly failed to establish management officials were motivated by any discrimination or reprisal rather than by identified legitimate non-discriminatory reasons or that any workplace conflict is the result of discrimination or reprisal rather than general mutual dislike between the parties. Specifically, the AJ found that the matters encompassed personality conflicts between both Complainant and her supervisor, and that both parties were mutually responsible. The AJ also expressly determined that a finding of a hostile fork environment was precluded by Complainant’s failure to establish that any of the matters raised in the remaining claims were motivated by discriminatory/retaliatory animus. 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 against by the Agency as alleged. 2021001908 5 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final action 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). 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). 2021001908 6 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. 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 March 2, 2022 Date