[Redacted], Mathilda S., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 17, 2022

Appeal No. 2021003935 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 17, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mathilda S.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003935 Hearing No. 470-2020-00033X Agency No. 4J-460-008019 DECISION 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 December 11, 2020 final order 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier Assistant, Q-01, at the Agency’s Munster/Hammond Post Office facility in Hammond, Indiana. 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. 2021003935 2 On September 7, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (African-American) when, on May 15, 2019, Complainant was removed.2 Complainant is African-American, as are her first-level and second-level supervisors (S1 and S2). On March 10, 2019, the 204B Supervisor (204B) (African-American) gave Complainant instructions to return to the street and deliver eight parcels. Complainant disagreed with the instructions. Complainant received multiple instructions to return to the street to complete the delivery of eight parcels as instructed and was warned that discipline would result if she did not follow instructions. Complainant refused to follow the instructions, and instead departed the office. On March 11, 2019, an investigative interview was held with S1 and a union representative regarding the incident. Complainant did not deny that she did not comply with 204B’s instructions. By Notice of Removal, dated March 14, 2019, the Postmaster notified Complainant that she would be removed on a charge of Failure to Follow Instructions. The Postmaster was the concurring official. He averred that Complainant had a history of not following instructions and this was progressive discipline. He also averred that Complainant had numerous opportunities to correct her behavior, but she failed to do so which resulted in her removal. ROI at 151. The Notice of Removal stated that it took into consideration Complainant’s prior disciplinary history for Failure to Follow Instructions. ROI at 77. Complainant stated that “this was personal because I wasn’t liked.” Complainant also noted that two Caucasian employees had engaged in misconduct, but they were still employed. The record does not show that the comparators were accused of the same misconduct. In addition, the record shows that the Agency had taken some disciplinary action against the other comparators. At the conclusion of 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). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion and issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. 2 The Agency dismissed several additional claims for failure to state a claim as they had been raised in a prior complaint. Complainant raised no challenges regarding the Agency’s dismissal of these claims and the Commission can find no basis to disturb the Agency’s dismissal decision. 2021003935 3 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). In order 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. We assume that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination and find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Here, Complainant did not deny the underlying conduct for which she was removed. She was given a direct order on March 10, 2019, to deliver eight additional packages, but she refused to do so and went home. Moreover, the record shows a prior undisputed disciplinary history. Furthermore, to the extent that she is alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, we find that the alleged conduct was insufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute unlawful harassment nor based on discriminatory animus. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 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 subjected to discrimination as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order 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 2021003935 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. 2021003935 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 October 17, 2022 Date