[Redacted], Valerie M., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 6, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004668 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 6, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Valerie M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 2020004668 Agency No. 4K-200-0110-19 DECISION On June 3, 2020, 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 May 19, 2020 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, Q-01, at the Agency’s Suitland Post Office in Suitland, Maryland. On October 19, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and disability (permanent spinal stroke) when, beginning approximately April 2018, and ongoing, management placed Complainant on leave without pay (LWOP) status.2 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. 2 The Agency dismissed three additional claims for failure to state a claim and untimely EEO Counselor contact. Complainant raised no challenges regarding the dismissal of these claims and the Commission can find no basis to disturb the Agency’s decision on these matters. 2020004668 2 Complainant identified multiple management officials as responsible for the alleged discrimination, including the Supervisor of Customer Service (female) (S1). While delivering the mail on Route 16 on January 27, 2018, Complainant fell ill and was hospitalized. Complainant was later diagnosed as having suffered a stroke of the spine. Investigative File (IF), Exhibit 4, pp. 2-4. Her medical condition left her with right-side nerve damage and right-side paralysis. She is unable to grasp, hold, or grip things with her right hand. Complainant averred she submitted some medical documentation and her restrictions to management. IF, Affidavit A, p. 41. Shortly after she suffered the stroke, Complainant was told to be on the lookout for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) forms and to have her FMLA forms completed by the hospital and her doctors. Complainant claimed that Agency officials did not give her the proper paperwork. Complainant was charged sick leave and/or donated leave, beginning January 27, 2018. Thereafter, Complainant was placed on LWOP status, effective April 17, 2018. IF, Exhibit 1, p. 210. Complainant claimed that her leave was not discussed. Complainant further maintained that she did not request to be placed on LWOP and she believed it was inappropriate since she was not notified. Complainant averred that S1 was responsible for placing her on LWOP. S1 acknowledged that she placed Complainant on LWOP, after she ran out of other paid leave. IF, Affidavit B, p. 2. S1 stated that on April 8, 2019, she sent Complainant a letter requesting that Complainant provide management with medical documentation, but she received no response. In addition, S1 stated that Complainant was referred to the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee, which closed the case after Complainant did not respond. The record includes medical documentation which was submitted to the Agency on October 21, 2019. That medical documentation recommended that she avoid pulling and pushing and long bouts of standing. The documentation also stated it was unclear if any additional recovery will occur. IF, Ex. 4, p. 6. Complainant has not returned to work. 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). 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). In the decision, the Agency determined that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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 Chapter 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 2020004668 3 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”). Disparate Treatment A claim of disparate treatment is usually examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Tex. Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256. Here, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The record shows that Complainant was placed on LWOP after all of her available sick leave and donated leave had been exhausted. Complainant failed to provide requested medical documentation in support of her absence; therefore, in accordance with Agency policy, she was placed on LWOP status. She did not identify anyone who was accorded more favorable treatment under similar circumstances. At all times, the ultimate burden remains with Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's reasons were not the real reasons and that the Agency acted on the basis of discriminatory animus. Complainant does not carry her burden here. Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant has not presented sufficient argument or evidence to establish that the Agency's explanation for its actions were pretext intended to mask a discriminatory motivation. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s Final 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: 2020004668 4 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). 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. 2020004668 5 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 October 6, 2021 Date