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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 28, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004977 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 28, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Julius P.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020004977 Agency No. 1G-336-0003-20 DECISION On August 23, 2020, Complainant 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 July 21, 2020 final decision (FAD) concerning his 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 worked as a Processing Equipment Mechanic, PS-09, at the Agency’s Ybor City Processing and Distribution Center in Tampa, Florida. On December 2, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (male), and color (white) when, on September 6, 2019, the Agency issued him a Letter of Warning for unsatisfactory performance/failure to follow instructions. 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. 2020004977 2 The Agency accepted the foregoing complaint and conducted an investigation into the matter. The investigation showed that on August 30, 2019, the Maintenance Operations Supervisor asked Complainant to stay and work an additional 2 hours of overtime to assist Tour 1. Complainant did not stay for the additional 2 hours and left without permission or notifying an MDO. The investigation also revealed that on August 31, 2019, Complainant was scheduled to work 4 hours of overtime. Instead of working overtime, Complainant left at the end of his normal tour and submitted a Form 3971, Request for or Notification of Absence where he wrote “AOT” (absent from overtime). His leave request was disapproved the following day. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his 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). In the FAD issued on July 21, 2020, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. Neither Complainant nor the Agency submitted a brief or statement on appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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”). Complainant alleges that the Agency treated him disparately by issuing a him a Letter of Warning for unsatisfactory performance/failure to follow instructions. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this analysis, a complainant initially must establish a prima facie case 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 St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 (1993); Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981); McDonnell Douglas 411 U.S. at 802. 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). 2020004977 3 Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant has the responsibility to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's action was based on prohibited considerations of discrimination, that is, its articulated reason for its action was not its true reason but a sham or pretext for discrimination. See Hicks, 509 U.S. at 511; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-5 3; McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804. This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983). Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Agency management witnesses stated that the reason for issuing the Letter of Warning was that Complainant failed to fulfill his duty to work overtime and did not have permission to leave work early on August 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019. The Maintenance Manager indicated that the supervisor on duty on August 31, 2019, was directly affected by Complainant’s actions when he did not work overtime. The Maintenance Manager explained that when the supervisor on duty asked Complainant to move to a different position on a machine, he decided to leave and submitted a Form 3971 written “AOT” (absent from overtime). Complainant acknowledged that he was absent from his scheduled overtime. The Agency pointed out that Complainant provided no explanation for his absence on August 30, 2019 and August 31, 2019. Because the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the burden shifts to Complainant to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's reason was a pretext for discrimination. Pretext can be demonstrated by showing such weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the Agency's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence. See Opare- Addo v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov. 20, 2007). Here, Complainant did not provide any arguments on appeal. In addition, Complainant offered no persuasive evidence during the investigation that would rebut the Agency’s articulated nondiscriminatory reason for the letter of warning. Consequently, we find that Complainant fails in his burden to establish that the articulated reason was a pretext designed to mask discrimination. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the FAD. 2020004977 4 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). 2020004977 5 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 October 28, 2021 Date