Shaniqua S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 20, 2018

0120162048 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Shaniqua S.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162048

Hearing No. 440-2014-00163X

Agency No. 4J-604-0092-14

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated May 24, 2016, finding no discrimination
concerning her 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. For the following
reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Sales, Service Associate, PS-5, at Romeoville Post Office, Romeoville, Illinois. On April 28,
2014, Complainant filed her complaint alleging discrimination based on race (Black) and in
reprisal for prior EEO activity when on March 11, 2014, she was issued a notice of 7-day
suspension for failure to maintain a regular work schedule. After completion of the investigation
of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
On April 12, 2016, the AJ issued her order dismissing the hearing request because Complainant
failed to file any prehearing submissions, including an opposition to the Agency’s motion for

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.
0120162048

2
summary judgement, and because she failed to provide good cause for her failure to comply with
Orders entered in the instant case. Therein, the AJ ordered the Agency to issue its final Agency
decision concerning the complaint. Accordingly, the Agency issued its final Agency decision
concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which
Complainant failed to rebut.

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 (EEO MD-110), 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").

Initially, we note that on appeal, Complainant does not dispute the AJ’s denial of her hearing
request. After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a
prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the suspension.

Complainant’s supervisor (S1) indicated that she issued Complainant a 7-day suspension on
March 18, 2014, for her failure to maintain a regular work schedule. Specifically, S1 stated that
Complainant had six unscheduled absences during the period of December 19, 2013, through
February 6, 2014, i.e., December 19-20 and 23-24, 2013, January 2 and 15, 2014, and February 5
and 6, 2014, which were not covered under FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) and she
failed to provide documentation to support her absences. In the suspension notice, S1 also
indicated that Complainant was issued a letter of warning on November 8, 2013, for failure to
maintain a regular schedule/tardiness and a 7-day suspension on December 16, 2013, for failure
to maintain a regular schedule/AWOL (Absent Without Leave) (both of which were reduced to a
letter of warning).

Complainant acknowledged that she did not have preapproved leave for the dates referenced in
the suspension at issue. Complainant claimed that she was absent on those dates either due to
illness, bad weather, or mitigating circumstances. S1 indicated that Complainant had a pattern of
not coming to work in conjunction with her nonscheduled days or in conjunction with holidays.
S1 indicated that Complainant filed a grievance regarding the suspension at issue but the
grievance was denied.

The record indicates that Complainant faxed the doctor’s note dated December 19, 2013, to S1
wherein which the doctor merely indicated that Complainant was seen by the doctor on
December 19, 2013, and she may resume work on December 25, 2013, with no restrictions. The
0120162048

3
doctor’s note did not provide Complainant’s medical conditions at the relevant time. We note
that Complainant is not alleging discrimination based on disability.

After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
articulated reasons were a mere pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, we find that
Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in her protected
groups who were treated differently under similar circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we
find that Complainant has failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by
discrimination as she alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in 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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a
legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
0120162048

4
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. 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

June 20, 2018
Date