[Redacted], Jaunita W., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 3, 2021

Appeal No. 2020000975 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 3, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jaunita W.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 2020000975 Hearing No. 540-2016-00260X Agency No. 1E-853-0001-16 DECISION On October 23, 2019, via counsel Complainant filed an appeal, per 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from a September 19, 2019 final Agency decision (FAD) on 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Group Leader Custodial, PS-05 at the Phoenix Processing & Distribution Center in Phoenix, Arizona. On January 7, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her sex (female) when on or around September 8, 2015, she was placed on limited duty assignment on a different tour than she had with different days off. After its EEO investigation into the complaint, the Agency gave Complainant a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). 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. 2020000975 2 Complainant requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing, which Complainant opposed. The AJ subsequently issued a brief decision by summary judgment finding no discrimination, which the Agency by final order adopted. The instant appeal followed. On August 21, 2015, Complainant had surgery on her right foot because of an on-the-job injury. Effective September 11, 2015, Complainant’s orthopedic physician released her, with restrictions, to work. ROI, Ex. 2, at Bates No. 100. The restrictions were not standing more than two hours at work, wearing a post-operative boot, and advice that sedentary work was okay. Complainant’s first line supervisor (S1 - male) offered Complainant the limited duty assignment of processing postal automated redirection system (PARS) waste mail, a sedentary task. The assignment changed Complainant from Tour 2 with a daily schedule of 5:30 AM to 2 PM with Saturdays and Sundays off to Tour 3 with a daily schedule of 6 PM to 2:30 AM with Tuesdays and Wednesdays off. Complainant reported to the new assignment on September 11, 2015, but was sent home because her boot was not proper foot ware. She obtained an approved boot and returned to the assignment on September 17, 2015. On October 12, 2015, Complainant’s orthopedic physician released her to full duty and Complainant returned to her regular tour and duties. Complainant contends that she was disparately treated from Coworker 1 (male), a Laborer Custodial, PS-04, in her facility who got injured and got a temporary limited duty assignment in the tools and parts room with his regular schedule. Complainant admitted that because Coworker 1 was placed in this assignment before she needed limited duty, this work was not available when she needed limited duty. She also admitted that Coworker 1’s assignment was temporary, and he too was eventually required to work PARS waste mail for his limited duty. See Complainant’s Reply in Opposition to Agency’s Motion for Decision Without a hearing, at ¶ 12 (Jun. 16, 2018). On appeal, Complainant argues that she was discriminated against based on being female because Coworker 1 was given limited duty without having to change his schedule, while she had her life turned upside down by having to change her tour for several weeks. She explains, as she did below, that she needed to be at home for her kids until her husband got home from work and the limited duty assignment was disruptive to her life outside of work. ANALSYSIS AND FINDINGS We must determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have issued a decision without a hearing on this record. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. 2020000975 3 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. Upon review of the record we find that the AJ properly found that the instant complaint was suitable for summary judgment. The record is adequately developed and there are no disputes of material fact. To prevail on her complaint, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she 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). The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with for this claim, however, since the Agency articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). The Agency explained that it gave Coworker 1 the tools and parts room limited duty assignment because work was available there, but when Complainant needed a limited assignment that work was not available because Coworker 1 was already assigned there. Complainant conceded this in her opposition to the Agency’s motion for a decision without a hearing. Complainant also admitted at ¶ 5 of her opposition that the hours of her limited duty PARS waste mail assignment was based on when this work is primarily performed. Complainant has not shown that the Agency’s explanation was pretext to mask sex discrimination nor otherwise proven sex discrimination. The FAD is AFFIRMED. 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 2020000975 4 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). 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. 2020000975 5 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 June 3, 2021 Date