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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 20, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005283 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Roscoe P.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021005283 Agency No. 1J-461-0020-21 DECISION On September 7, 2021, 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 August 16, 2021, final decision 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk, PS-06/O, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He joined the Agency in 1978. On March 2, 2021, Complainant received a Letter of Warning (LOW) for allegedly walking away from his assigned sorting machine while it was still in operation. As Complainant had previously walked away from his sorting machine on two prior occasions, the Agency determined that a LOW was warranted. On April 6, 2021, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), and age (over 40) when: 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. 2021005283 2 1. On December 5-11, 2020, and March 9-31, 2021, Complainant was harassed;2 and 2. On or around March 2, 2021, Complainant was issued a LOW. On May 4, 2021, the Agency notified Complainant that it would only accept claim 2 for investigation because claim 1 failed to state a claim under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). In dismissing claim 1, the Agency reasoned that Complainant’s bare bones allegations did not sufficiently establish that he had been aggrieved by the Agency’s actions, as Complainant “did not expound on this issue by specifying how [he] was allegedly harassed and to what frequency.” Furthermore, the Agency noted that “[o]ther than being issued a LOW, [Complainant] listed no specific dates or incidents or descriptions of how [he] was harassed.” Relying, in part, on Bejar v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080722 (February 12, 2008) and Owens v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01A63022 (August 24, 2006), the Agency concluded that dismissal of the claim was warranted. At the conclusion of the investigation into claim 2, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the Report of Investigation (ROI) 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). The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination, as the Agency had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for issuing Complainant a LOW, which Complainant failed to rebut. This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant disputes the Agency’s final decision and maintains, in relevant part, that the Agency committed crimes and violations against humanity by committing “systemic verbal and written fabrications, behavioral threats and denials with signature” and “systemic verbal assults [sic].” In support to his contention, Complainant resubmits his formal complaint and the memoranda that he submitted in prior EEO and non-EEO complaints. He requests the maximum compensatory damage award times 37. The Agency, however, did not file any contentions in opposition to Complainant’s appeal. 2 Complainant alleged, in part, that management “support[ed] insurrections and systemic[ally] breached anti-discriminatory practices that promote[d] inept cupuliable [sic] negeliences [sic],” made unspecified “innate systemic verbal and written threats,” and committed “known crimes against humanity and the acknowledged USPS-NRP mirrored dilemmas.” See Formal Complaint, Report of Investigation (ROI) at 00006-8. He further alleged that management “daily exercised anoesis and known acrimony without dignity and respect,” “direct[ed] personal manipulations that alter[ed] mail processing personnel efficiency and mail processing productive equipment,” and “direct[ed] personal improprieties that [violated] the known all employee USPS-Zero Tolerance Policy.” Id. 2021005283 3 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 Chap. 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”). Upon careful review of the record, we find that the Agency’s final decision accurately recounted the relevant facts. The final decision also correctly identified the legal standard for Complainant to prove that he was subjected to discrimination. Concerning his allegations of disparate treatment discrimination, he must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Having reviewed the record, we find that the Agency correctly determine that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. In reaching this conclusion, we carefully considered Complainant’s contentions on appeal; however, we still find no discrimination because we are unable to causally link the Agency’s issuance of a LOW to Complainant’s protected bases. To the extent that Complainant is arguing that the Agency’s dismissal of claim 1 was improper, we are ultimately disinclined to agree with him. The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. In determining whether a harassment complaint states a claim in cases where a complainant had not alleged disparate treatment regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, the Commission has repeatedly examined whether a complainant’s harassment claims, when considered together and assumed to be true, were sufficient to state a hostile or abusive work environment claim. See Estate of Routson v. Nat’l Aeronautics and Space Admin., EEOC Request No. 05970388 (Feb. 26, 1999). Upon review, we find Complainant’s allegations to be too vague and unspecific to state a claim of discrimination. See Vargas v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120092295 (July 14, 2009) (finding complainant’s allegation that management constantly observed him on the street to be too unspecific and vague to state a claim of discrimination). Therefore, based on a thorough review of the record including arguments made on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. 2021005283 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). 2021005283 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 December 20, 2022 Date