[Redacted], Wendy H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 5, 2022Appeal No. 2021003937 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 5, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Wendy H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003937 Agency No. 1B-021-0044-20 DECISION On June 30, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s June 2, 2021 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Laborer Custodial, PS-04, at the Agency’s Middlesex-Essex Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in North Reading, Massachusetts. On December 30, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female) when, on September 21, 2020, Complainant was deemed ineligible for the two mechanic positions she interviewed for on September 18, 2020.2 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 an additional claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO counselor contact. The Commission can find no basis to disturb the Agency’s dismissal of the claim. 2021003937 2 Complainant was transferred back to the Middlesex-Essex (P&DC) in May 2020. Like with all new maintenance employees, the Maintenance Selection System Coordinator (MSS Coordinator) spoke with Complainant about other positions available within the Maintenance department. She gave her a Selection and Data Form to fill out if she was interested in upgrading to one of those position. Complainant filled out the form and then signed up to take the 955 Maintenance Exam for the other positions. She received a passing score for Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic (MM) and Level 9 Mail Processing Equipment (MPE) Mechanic and was scheduled to interview for the jobs. In this process, Complainant did not interview for a specific job; rather, the interview was part of the process to determine whether the employee was eligible to be put on the register for available jobs. Complainant was interviewed on September 18, 2020, by the Acting Maintenance Engineering Specialist (MES), Maintenance Supervisor (S1), and the Human Resources Specialist. On September 21, 2020, Complainant received an email informing her she was ineligible for both positions. Complainant alleged she met the qualifications for the MM and MPE positions and that she was unfairly scored low on the maintenance interview. Complainant explained the interview scoring process was subjective because it was a matter of answering the questions presented and demonstrating one’s knowledge of the material. Complainant alleged the positions were denied to her because she is a woman, and the department discriminates against woman. The Maintenance Manager (M1) testified that the decision of who should be interviewed or found eligible for the MM or MPE mechanic positions was computer-generated. Employees that pass the interview and exam with a high enough combination eligibility score are put on the promotion register by seniority for a Level 7 or Level 9. M1 said that Complainant did not meet the qualifications for the MM and MPE Mechanic positions because she did not pass the final computer-generated rating to be put on the register. She said she told Complainant how to move up in the Maintenance department by taking courses or going to school to learn the skills she did not possess. Acting MES said that Complainant did not meet the requirements of analytical problem solving or information usage for the Level 7 MM position. For the Level 9 MPE position, he said she did not meet the requirements of analytical problem solving, information usage, and electronic knowledge. The interviewers determined Complainant did not demonstrate basic electronic knowledge for the MPE position. Acting MES said he remembered one of Complainant’s answers regarding a hair dryer not working and she responded that her first step would be to check it by using a multimeter. However, the first step should have been to unplug the hair dryer and try it in another outlet. S1 concurred that Complainant had trouble with analytical troubleshooting for the Level 7 MM position, and, according to some of her answers in the interview, she did not have the skills for the Level 9 MPE position. Acting MES explained that the questions asked during the interview came from the interview guide. They determined which questions were used depending on the position. Human Resources was informed of the questions Maintenance selected. At the end of the interview, the interviewers discuss the employee’s responses and how they demonstrated their knowledge and a 2021003937 3 final score for each answer was decided. A consensus sheet with the final score was sent to Human Resources. The same questions were asked of each individual interviewing for the same position. Another custodian (male) was interviewed on September 18, 2020, attempting to get on the register for the MPE Mechanic position. He did not meet the requirements for the position during the interview and was deemed ineligible to be placed on the register after the final computer-generated rating. 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). In accordance with Complainant’s request, 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. 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 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 To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. 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 Hon. Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tx. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). Assuming arguendo Complainant established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, the Commission finds, as described above, that the Agency articulated legitimate, non- 2021003937 4 discriminatory reasons for its actions. Complainant was interviewed with standardized interview questions for the position and rated on the same point system. The determination of whether she was eligible or ineligible to be put on the register for possible promotion was computer- generated based on her test and interview scores. Complainant did not meet the specific qualifications for the MM and MPE positions. M1 told Complainant about a program which she could take online for free and put Complainant in for Hero online classes at the post office that would be beneficial for her take if she wanted to get promoted in maintenance. M1 said Complainant had not made use of this information by the time she (M1) retired at the end of December 2020. Complainant now bears the burden of establishing that the Agency's stated reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination. Shapiro v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996). Complainant can do this directly by showing that the Agency's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). As 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. The Commission finds no persuasive evidence that Complainant's sex was a factor in any of the Agency's actions. Aside from Complainant’s conclusory allegations and speculations, Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency’s reasons were pretext for discriminatory animus. 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 failed to carry this burden. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety and contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, 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 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. 2021003937 5 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. 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. 2021003937 6 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 5, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation