[Redacted], Janet B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 10, 2021Appeal No. 2020002116 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 10, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Janet B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002116 Agency No. 4B-070-0075-19 DECISION Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s final decision dated December 12, 2019, concerning her 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., 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. ISSUES PRESENTED The issues presented are: (1) whether Complainant established that the Agency's proffered explanations for its actions were pretext to mask discrimination based on her race, national origin, sex, religion, disability, and age; and (2) whether Complainant established that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her protected classes, as alleged. 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. 2020002116 2 BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier Assistant (CCA) at the Agency’s Post Office in Florham Park, New Jersey. On June 3, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, as amended, alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment on the bases of race (African-American), national origin (United States), sex (female), religion (Muslim), disability (mental), and age when: 1. On November 3, 2018, a coworker called her names and threatened to cause her to lose her job and management took no action to ensure her safety; 2. From November 13, 2018, through January 31, 2019, she was marked Absent Without Leave (AWOL); 3. On February 9, 2019, she was denied a uniform allowance; 4. On February 11, 2019, she was sent home early; 5. On April 11, 2019, she was told not to report to work until she was cleared for duty; 6. On June 29, 2019, she was not allowed to clock-in when she reported for work in a non-collared shirt; 7. On July 11, 2019, she was instructed to case two routes, but was then left without a route to deliver despite being the senior CCA; 8. On July 11, 2019, the Postmaster approached her personal vehicle and told her that she was clocking her out, and when she asked the Postmaster to move away from her vehicle, the Postmaster said, "You know what, you have mental issues anyway"; and 9. On July 16, 2019, she was sent home early. Following the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The Agency specifically found that it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Complainant did not show were pretextual. With regard to claim 2, the Agency noted that Complainant was marked with AWOL during the time period at issue because Complainant never contacted anyone passing management about not coming to work, and that no 2020002116 3 one had heard from Complainant for weeks. The Agency also noted, regarding claim 3, that records indicated that Complainant was not eligible for a uniform allowance. In addressing claim 4, the Agency noted that Complainant was sent home early for yelling unprofessionally on the workroom floor. The Agency additionally observed, with respect to claim 5, that Complainant was instructed not to report to work because she sent a text to another employee that she wanted to hurt herself or others. As for claim 6, the Agency noted that when Complainant was instructed that she needed to be in complete uniform, Complainant then called out sick and did not report to work. The Agency also observed regarding claim 8, that Complainant had disappeared for about 30 minutes and did not comply with the Postmaster’s instructions to deliver parcels. But when the Postmaster went to go find Complainant concerning her whereabouts, Complainant threatened the Postmaster by saying, “don’t ever walk up on my car again or else.” The Agency observed that Complainant then followed the Postmaster, yelling and threatening the Postmaster further, so the Postmaster therefore threatened to call the police if Complainant did not leave the premises. With regard to claim 9, the Agency noted that Complainant began to yell at the Postmaster after Complainant was instructed to put-on her carrier regulated shoes before she “punched-in” for work. In addressing Complainant’s of a hostile work environment regarding claim 1, the Agency found that Complainant’s allegations did not occur as she alleged. Rather, according to the Agency, an employee approached management complaining that Complainant had been subjecting him to a hostile work environment by asking him inappropriate questions. As for claim 7, the Agency noted that Complainant cased route 5 for about 20 minutes and then cased route 10 for about 10 minutes but was then found in her car on her phone not working. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Neither party filed a brief on appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). 2020002116 4 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Disparate Treatment (Claims 2-6, and 9) To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, a complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). A complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 441 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, a complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). In the instant case, we find that assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on her protected classes, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to claims 2-6, and 9. With regard to claim 2, the Postmaster explained that Complainant was marked as AWOL during the time period because Complainant was a no call and a no show to work and no one had heard from Complainant for weeks. Regarding claim 3, the Postmaster stated that Agency records showed that Complainant was not eligible for a uniform allowance. In addressing claim 4, the Postmaster averred that Complainant was sent home early for yelling on the workroom floor in an unprofessional manner. The Postmaster also explained, with respect to claim 5, that Complainant was instructed not to report to work because Complainant sent a text to another employee that she wanted to hurt herself or others. As for claim 6, the Postmaster stated that Complainant was instructed that she needed to be in complete uniform, but Complainant then called out sick and did not report to work. The Postmaster additionally explained, with respect to claim 9, that Complainant was sent home early for yelling in a disruptive manner after she was instructed to put-on her carrier regulated shoes before she “punched-in” for work. The burden now shifts to Complainant to establish that the Agency's nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. Burdine at 254. Upon review, we find that Complainant has not established that the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretextual based on her protected classes. We can find no evidence in the record that management acted with discriminatory animus based on Complainant’s race, national origin, sex, religion, disability, or age. Based on the record before us, we find that Complainant has not established that she was subjected to disparate treatment discrimination regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9. Hostile Work Environment 2020002116 5 Finally, to the extent that Complainant is alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems. Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 3, 1994). Complainant's harassment claim is precluded based on the Commission's finding that she failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus with regard to claims 2- 6, and 9. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01932923 (Sep. 21, 2000). With respect to claims 1 and 7, we find that Complainant has not established that the Agency’s actions were severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment. For example, we note that the Agency conducted a harassment investigation with regard to Complainant’s allegations concerning claim 1. No employees who witnessed the incident alleged in claim 1 corroborated Complainant’s version of events. They all attested, however, that it was Complainant who made the disrespectful and unprofessional comments and not the coworker. Report of Investigation at 245-248. We find that Complainant has not established that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment, as alleged. CONCLUSION Therefore, after a careful review of the record, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final 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 2020002116 6 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. 2020002116 7 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 August 10, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation