Shondra H.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 25, 20180120180094 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 25, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Shondra H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120180094 Hearing No. 480-2014-00428X Agency No. 4E-890-0044-13 DECISION Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency’s final order dated August 31, 2017, 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. 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 order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In her complaint, filed on July 3, 2013, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (African American), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) Beginning in mid-April 2013, she was assigned the more difficult task of processing parcels; 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. 0120180094 2 (2) Her Manager (M1) yelled at her, spoke harshly to her, criticized her work, told her she was not “working good enough or fast enough,” and stared at her; (3) Her report time was changed from 3:00 A.M. to 5:00 A.M.; and (4) She was periodically asked to take her lunch break at 6:00 A.M. Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 18, 2014, the Agency filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Complainant filed a response to the Agency’s motion opposing a decision without a hearing on August 18, 2014. On August 28, 2017, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. Complainant appeals the Agency’s final order. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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 this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In the instant case, the AJ incorporated the factual summary as set forth in the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The AJ, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. At the relevant time, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Mail Processing Clerk in its Las Vegas King Station in Las Vegas, Nevada. Regarding claim (1), the Agency stated that as a full-time Mail Processing Clerk, Complainant was assigned to work with the parcels, i.e., separating parcels, as needed according to her position description. Complainant does not dispute this. Complainant did not show that other similarly situated persons were treated differently. 0120180094 3 Regarding claim (2), M1 denied he yelled at Complainant but indicated that he did let his employees, including Complainant, know when they were not fulfilling their job performance expectations. Regarding claim (3), M1 acknowledged that effective April 29, 2013, Complainant’s starting time was changed from 3:00 A.M. to 5:00 A.M. based on the workload, staffing needs, and operational efficiency. M1 indicated that at the relevant time, since the most mail came into the facility for processing at 5:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M., she decided to have Complainant come in at 5:00 A.M. (rather than 3:00 A.M.) to maximize efficiency. The Agency stated that Complainant filed a grievance on this matter which was settled and her starting time was changed to 4:00 A.M. Regarding claim (4), Complainant’s immediate supervisor indicated that Complainant was the only morning full-time mail processor who was guaranteed a lunch break; others were part-time employees who were not guaranteed a lunch break. The supervisor stated that Complainant was sent to lunch based on the volume of mail on a given day by whatever supervisor was working the early morning on that day. The AJ noted that at the relevant time, Complainant was not reprimanded, disciplined, demoted or otherwise subjected to a tangible or material adverse action because of the alleged incidents. The AJ also indicated and we agree that Complainant failed to show that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances or that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. Despite Complainant’s claim, the AJ properly noted that two part-time employees, she identified, were not similarly situated employees as she was a full-time employee. Regarding her claim of harassment, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish the severity of the conduct in question or that it was related to any protected basis of discrimination. We find that the record is adequately developed and there are no material facts in dispute. We also find that the AJ properly found that the complaint was properly decided without a hearing. Upon review, the AJ found and we agree that there is no evidence that the Agency’s articulated reasons were untrue or otherwise indicative of pretext. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. 0120180094 4 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 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. 0120180094 5 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 January 25, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation