[Redacted], Miriam B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 3, 2021Appeal No. 2020001572 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Miriam B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020001572 Agency No. 4G330012519 DECISION On December 23, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s November 27, 2019 final decision 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, 01/O, at the Agency’s Post Office in Key West, Florida. On May 8, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), disability, age (YOB 1964), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1) The Postmaster told Complainant not to talk, demeaned her on the workroom floor, and put his hand in her face; 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. 2020001572 2 2) Complainant was instructed to provide updated medical information every 30 days; and 3) Management tried to overwork Complainant. Complainant claimed that the Postmaster degraded and insulted her on numerous occasions when she went to the Marathon Post Office as a Union official or when the Postmaster would go to the Key West Post Office. Complainant alleged the Postmaster told her not to talk on numerous occasions when she was a Union official helping carriers and when Postmaster was in her work area. She alleged on one occasion the Postmaster screamed at her and said he would call the police for trespassing. Complainant stated she has an autoimmune disorder that is aggravated by stress and Epstein Barr Virus and has an eight-hour workday or 40-hour workweek restriction. Complainant alleged the Postmaster wanted her to work overtime, going against her restrictions, because they were understaffed. Additionally, the Postmaster informed Complainant she needed to provide updated medical information every 30 days. Complainant claimed that previously, she was updating her medical information every six months. Complainant alleged the Postmaster was constantly asking her for updated medical documentation and that he informed management that Complainant had failed to provide the updated medical documentation. Complainant stated she provided the Postmaster with updated medical documentation several times, including sending it via certified mail; however the Postmaster denied receiving the documents and informed management Complainant had not submitted them. Complainant believed the Postmaster targeted her because he did not like women, mature individuals he could not bully, and that Postmaster’s supervisor had instructed him to give preferential treatment to Black employees. The Postmaster generally denied all of Complainant’s allegations. The Postmaster and Complainant’s Supervisor (S1), both stated they were verbally informed of Complainant’s eight- hour work restriction but did not know the reason behind the restriction. The Postmaster stated he did not receive Complainant’s medical documentation and that Agency policy allowed for management to request updated medical information every 30 days. He stated the Union and the District Labor representative told Complainant to comply with the request and that employees in the office were asked to provide update medical documentation and all complied except Complainant. The Manager Labor Relations, Fort Lauderdale District Office, stated she had discussions with Postmaster relating to grievances, disciplinary actions, and management’s rights to request documentation from employees who claim to have medical restrictions that prevented them from performing essential duties of their position or who have requested sick leave. She explained that normally an employee was required to provide updated medical information every 30 days. 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 EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant did not request a hearing and the Agency issued a final Agency decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 2020001572 3 In the FAD, the Agency determined that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Hostile Work Environment To establish a hostile work environment claim, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected classes; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [complainant's] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The antidiscrimination statutes are not civility codes. Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of her protected classes. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself. Here, Complainant asserted that based on her protected classes, management officials subjected her to a hostile work environment. However, the Commission finds that the totality of the conduct at issue was insufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, there is no persuasive evidence in the record that discriminatory or retaliatory animus played a role in any of the Agency’s actions. Rather, the evidentiary record reflects that the alleged incidents were more likely the result of routine supervision, managerial discipline, and general workplace disputes and tribulations. For example, regarding Complainant’s claim that the Postmaster demeaned her and instructed her not to talk, the Postmaster denied demeaning Complainant or otherwise acting in a disrespectful manner. Two witnesses corroborated that Complainant and the Postmaster were involved in incidents where the Postmaster was loud and angry. Additionally, the record contains witness statements from various coworkers from a class action grievance filed by the Union alleging harassment against the Postmaster. These statements may support Complainant’s allegations of Postmaster’s aggressive and harassing behavior to those he managed; however, it appears he has indiscriminately subjected many employees to similar treatment. 2020001572 4 There is no evidence aside from conclusory statements that Complainant’s protected bases were the reason behind his actions. As to Complainant’s work restrictions and updated medical information, management officials and the Manager Labor Relations Specialist stated that other employees in the office were also asked to provide updated medical information and it was standard Agency procedure for medical information to be updated every 30 days. Finally, management officials confirmed that they did not try to overwork Complainant beyond her eight-hour work restriction. The record is devoid of evidence demonstrating that management officials violated Complainant’s medical restrictions. Because Complainant chose not to request a hearing, the Commission does not have the benefit of an Administrative Judge's credibility determinations after a hearing. Therefore, the Commission can only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented. Complainant presented no evidence, other than subjective beliefs and assertions, that the actions complained of were taken because of his protected classes. Such statements and speculation, without corresponding probative evidence, do not suffice to demonstrate pretext. See Nagle v. Dep't of the Treas., EEOC Appeal No. 0120092440 (Feb. 4, 2011). Thus, the Commission concludes that Complainant has not presented evidence sufficient to prove that he was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination or reprisal occurred. 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. 2020001572 5 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. 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. 2020001572 6 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 August 3, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation