U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Machelle L.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120181030
Agency No. 4K-230-0105-17
DECISION
On January 31, 2018, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s December 29, 2017 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
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Supervisor at the Agency’s Norview Post
Office in Norfolk, Virginia.
On July 25, 2017, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that she
was subjected to harassment/a hostile work environment based on sex (female) and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity when:
1. on or about March 13, 2017 through April 6, 2017, she was harassed, belittled,
threatened with discipline and/or spoken to in a demeaning manner;
2. on or about March 20, 2017 through April 6, 2017, her supervisor undermined her
authority by overruling the assignment she provided to carriers;
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.
01201810302
3. on or about March 20, 2017, while working a manual task in the office, her supervisor
took a picture of her from behind, and subsequently displayed the picture inside of the
Post Office, showed the picture to other management officials at a meeting, and
posted the picture on social media; and
4. on April 7, 2017, her supervisor stated “I’m going to get you,” and indicated she was
informed that Complainant had scratched her car.
After the investigation of the claims, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision on
February 6, 2018, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she
belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of
unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or
condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the
work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and
(5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.
1982).
In other words, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was
subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in
Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant
must also prove that the conduct was taken because of her protected bases – in this case, her sex
or prior protected activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and
motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.
In allegation 1, Complainant asserted she was harassed, belittled, threatened with discipline
and/or spoken to in a demeaning manner by a named Manager, Customer Service (“the
manager”) (female), that started shortly after this manager returned to work at the Norview Post
Office. Complainant alleged the manager told a group of carriers that Complainant had made a
“mess” out of Norview and she had been sent back to the office to clean it up. She also said the
manager told her she could not have a bottle of water at her desk, and later told Complainant in
front of another employee that if she did not follow instructions and implement certain
procedures, she would face discipline. Complainant said the manager accused her of stealing
mail on one occasion and improperly delaying the mail on another.
01201810303
She said she believed that the manager was determined to find fault in everything Complainant
did and to issue discipline to Complainant. Complainant connected the manager’s actions to her
sex because she said she was directed by the manager to discipline a female subordinate
employee for things male employees were allowed to get away with. She said that the manager
threatened her with disciplinary action for not following directions if she did not issue the
directed discipline.
Complainant alleged she had a previous history of run-ins with the manager and asserted that the
manager was temporarily reassigned away from Norview to a different office for about a year
because of the hostile work environment she had created.2 The evidence also shows that the
manager participated in a mediation session with Complainant over an EEO complaint that was
settled in August 2015.
The alleged harassment took place during a three-week period between March 13 (when the
manager returned to Norview) and April 6, because Complainant had previously been selected to
leave Norview to take a postmaster position at another office. She appears to have left Norview
on or around April 7.
The record includes a March 31, 2017 email exchange between Complainant and the manager
where the manager accused Complainant of fabricating stories about delivering packages. It also
includes an April 4, 2017 email complaining Complainant was refusing to turn over the key to
the station upon her departure to her new position.
The manager categorically denied harassing Complainant.
In allegation 2, Complainant alleged that the manager undermined her authority by overruling
the assignment she provided to carriers. She said she instructed the carriers to deliver the parcels
on their routes, but the manager overruled the instruction and had an employee responsible for
special deliveries take the packages. Complainant said the manager said she did this so the
regular carriers would return to the office from their routes earlier. Complainant disagreed
because the special delivery employee was unable to perform her regular duties and deliver the
carrier packages, so Complainant ended up having to make the special deliveries. The manager
stated that she and Complainant simply disagreed on this issue and she made the decision to go
her way. During the investigation, Complainant admitted she could not tie this allegation to her
sex or retaliatory animus.
In allegation 3, Complainant alleged that on or about March 20, 2017, the manager took a picture
on her cell phone of Complainant from behind, and subsequently showed the picture to other
management officials at a meeting, while commenting and laughing about Complainant’s attire
was inappropriate. Complainant believed the manager would not have done the same thing to a
male employee.
2 According to Complainant this occurred as a result of a complaint by another employee, not
Complainant.
01201810304
The manager denied taking a picture of Complainant. However, another manager (“Manager 2”)
(female) said that she was in a managers meeting where the manager showed a picture on her
phone of Complainant to several other managers. Manager 2 said she did not see the picture
herself. Manager 2 said she also heard that the manager had posted the picture on Facebook, but
she did not personally see the post. Manager 2 said she felt the manager’s actions regarding the
photo were “rude and unprofessional.”
In allegation 4, Complainant asserted that on Complainant’s last day at Norview, the manager
accused Complainant of scratching her car and threatened, “I’m going to get you.” The manager
denied the allegation.
After careful consideration of the evidence, it seems more likely than not that the manager and
Complainant had a contentious relationship and that the manager treated Complainant, during the
three-week period after the manager returned to Norview and before Complainant left the office,
with a certain hostility and harshness that left Complainant feeling aggrieved. At a minimum,
several emails in the record seem to confirm this was the case. It also seems likely that the
manager did, in fact, take a picture of Complainant and pass it around a management meeting.
However, Title VII does not protect an employee against adverse treatment due simply to a
supervisor's negative personality or autocratic attitude. See Jackson v. City of Killeen, 654 F.2d
1181, 1186 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Title VII is not a shield against harsh treatment at the workplace; it
protects only in instances of harshness disparately distributed. The essence of the action is, of
course discrimination.”). See also Bouche v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01990799
(March 13, 2002). Discrimination statutes prohibit only harassing behavior that is directed at an
employee because of his or her protected bases. Here, the evidence of record simply does not
show that the manager’s conduct was motivated by Complainant’s sex or by retaliatory animus
towards her prior EEO activity. Therefore, Complainant’s harassment/hostile work environment
claim is precluded because the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that the
manager’s actions, while negative, were motivated by her protected bases. See Oakley v. U.S.
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding no discrimination because the preponderance of the evidence
of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
01201810305
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.
01201810306
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
July 2, 2019
Date
