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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 14, 2022

Appeal No. 2020005157 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 14, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Melvin C.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020005157 Hearing Nos. 560-2018-00115X, 560-2018-00043X Agency Nos. 1G-731-003-17, 1G-731-013-17 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s July 6, 2020, final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Mail Processing Clerk in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. On March 31, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Vietnamese), sex (male), color, disability (physical), age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On November 13, 2016, through an unspecified date in April 2017, he was not permitted to work; 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. 2020005157 2 2. On December 25, 2016, after he reported for work, he was sent home and not paid; and 3. On January 1, 2017, after being scheduled to work, he was not permitted to work.2 Complainant also filed a formal complaint on March 31, 2017, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Vietnamese), sex (male), color, disability (physical), age, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. Since on or about April 8, 2017, and ongoing through October 20, 2017, he was provided with a light duty position of four hours per day and only scheduled for four hours of work per day; and 2. On May 29, 2017, he was charged with four hours of leave without pay (LWOP), which resulted in him not receiving four hours of holiday pay. 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, and the AJ joined Complainant’s complaints for processing. 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 AJ specifically noted that Complainant’s position required lifting up to 70 pounds and carrying up to 25 pounds intermittently for seven hours. The AJ noted that Complainant submitted a request for light duty, and Complainant’s doctor noted that he could not lift, push, or pull more than 15-20 pounds. The AJ also observed that Complainant could not reach away from his body with his left arm. The AJ found that management was not able to find work within Complainant’s restrictions because his restrictions prevented him from working on machinery, which is what his bid position required. The AJ additionally observed that Complainant was referred to the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC), and Complainant met with DRAC on January 18, 2017. The AJ found, however, that DRAC noted that Complainant did not have typing skills and that there were no available light or limited duty positions on Complainant’s tour. The AJ noted that Complainant was asked if he was willing to change his tour of duty. But Complainant would not commit to a change of his tour of duty. The AJ additionally noted that Complainant accepted an Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) limited duty assignment dated May 10, 2017, which listed his work hours as four hours. The AJ observed that Complainant said that he was entitled to eight hours of work per day, but he nevertheless signed and accepted the OWCP limited duty assignment. 2 We reversed the Agency dismissal of Complainant’s complaint and remanded the matter for investigation in Melvin C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120172177 (Aug. 24, 2017). 2020005157 3 The AJ also found that Complainant’s identified comparators, who were afforded with the ability to work eight hours, had different bid jobs, tours, and/or medical restrictions. With regard to Complainant’s claim that he was charged with four hours of leave without pay (LWOP) on May 29, 2017, the AJ found that upon notification of the error management changed Complainant’s time and attendance. The Agency issued its final order 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. 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. 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 discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 2020005157 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). 2020005157 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 March 14, 2022 Date