[Redacted], Ralph E., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 29, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000057 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ralph E.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000057 Hearing No. 480-2021-00035X Agency No. 4F-926-0133-20 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s August 11, 2021 final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of 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 Supervisor, Customer Services, EAS-17, at the Agency’s Corona Citrus Station located in Corona, California. Complainant’s duty station was the Corona Citrus Station; however, he was asked by the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) to supervise at the Corona Main Station, approximately five miles away. Complainant alleged that he and the OIC verbally agreed that if OIC left the Corona Main Station, Complainant would return to his position at the Corona Citrus Station. OIC denied that he could even make such a verbal agreement and said that he told Complainant that it would be up to the Postmaster as to whether he returned to Corona Citrus. 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. 2022000057 2 In June 2020, OIC left the Corona Main Station. Complainant stated that he repeatedly asked M1 to return to the Corona Citrus Station, but she denied his requests. Complainant claimed that he was not given a reason for not granting the request. M1 explained that she was unaware of any conditions of Complainant’s move to the Corona Main Station. M1 stated that it was reported to her that Complainant was having affairs with a clerk and a carrier at the Corona Citrus Station and she informed Complainant that he could not directly supervise employees who he may be dating. M1 further noted that the carriers at Citrus Station felt he showed favoritism and that it was more of a fair environment since he had started working at the Corona Main Post Office. As a result, M1 determined that it was not appropriate for Complainant to return since she was informed that he was dating multiple craft employees. Complainant claimed that the Corona Citrus Manager (M1) shared false rumors about him, including that he had an affair with another employee. In addition, Complainant alleged that M1 would question his work performance and verbally bullied him. Complainant further claimed that management told him he was no longer needed and that he should take sick leave. M1 denied spreading rumors about Complainant and, again, noted that multiple employees approached her and told her about the rumors. The record reveals that multiple employees corroborated that they heard directly from Complainant that he was having an affair with multiple subordinate female employees. M1 stated that she at no time bullied or subjected Complainant to verbal abuse and that he has never been verbally admonished. M1 denied ever having any discussions with Complainant regarding his job performance. Complainant alleged that M1 called him at home on July 18, 2020, screaming at him “How come you are not at work helping to throw parcels?” Complainant believed that M1 was trying to blame him for the parcels being late when it was the responsibility of the supervisor on duty. M1 denied yelling at Complainant. M1 stated that she believed that Complainant gave excessive employees off knowing he was not working, and she advised him that it impacted the operation for the supervisor on duty. Complainant claimed that M1 called his cell phone on August 22, 2020 and asked him why an employee had a Citrus Station finance number. Complainant stated that he went into work on August 23, 2020, to fix the error and put him into the Corona Main Office finance number but discovered that the employee was actually in the correct finance number all along. Complainant believed that this was a false claim by M1 and was intended to ruin his weekend with his family. On October 9, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his age (57) and disability (Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, stroke, depression, stress) when: (1) in support of his harassment/hostile work environment allegation beginning on or about June 26, 2020, and continuing, he was subjected to the following: (a) he was constantly questioned about his work performance, bullied, and subjected to verbal abuse; (b) the Officer in Charge shared false rumors with employees stating that he had an affair with another employee, and he allowed a carrier to return to work knowing he was sick with Covid-19; and (c) he was told by 2022000057 3 management that he was no longer needed and to take sick leave; (2) on or about June 26, 2020, his request to return to his position at the Citrus Post Office was not granted; (3) on July 18, 2020, he was called and accused of setting up another supervisor/employee for failure and threatened to be brought in to work later to close the facility; and (4) on August 22, 2020, he was called and questioned about one employee being in the wrong finance number which required him to report to the office to make the correction. 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. The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment as alleged. In the decision, the AJ determined that Complainant failed to show that any of the conduct at issue was based on discriminatory animus. More specifically, as to claim (2), Complainant’s manager (M1) denied Complainant's request to transfer to the Citrus Main Office because she was informed that he was dating multiple craft employees and she believed that it was inappropriate for him to be dating subordinate employees. Regarding all remaining issues, the AJ found that Complainant failed to show that his protected classes played a role in any of the Agency’s actions. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. 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 factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 2022000057 4 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. 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). 2022000057 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 29, 2022 Date