0120151430
08-16-2017
Breanne S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Breanne S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120151430
Agency No. 4C-170-0001-14
DECISION
On March 11, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(a), from the Agency's March 5, 2015, 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision which found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this case is whether Complainant was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment with regard to a number of work incidents.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postal Support Employee (PSE), Post Office Clerk, Level 4 at the Agency's Revere Post Office in Revere, Pennsylvania. Complainant indicated that she is a white woman who is heavily tattooed. She maintained that management discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment. On January 13, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female), color (Tattoos), age (51), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when:
1. On March 28, 2013, she had requested time off for wedding, however, the Postmaster forgot about it even though it was written on a calendar, and said the calendar had disappeared;
2. On May 29, 2013, her time was not entered correctly which caused two months of pay advances, table deductions, and corrections;
3. Over a few weeks in June 2013, her Postmaster was inappropriate on several occasions when he talked about his sexual encounters with women and commented on the size of her chest;
4. On unspecified date(s) in and around June 2013, her manager disrespected her and talked about her sexual encounters with men;
5. On February 25, 2014, she was advised that she could not work in the Kintnersville Post Office because she was not a distribution clerk; and
6. She received Letters of Demand for $171.90 and $525 on a closed and settled OIG investigation.
Complainant also alleged discriminatory harassment based on color (Tattoos) and Retaliation (Current EEO Activity) when:
7. On a date to be specified, she was accused of leaving a door open;
8. On a date to be specified, she was issued a Letter of Demand;
9. On dates to be specified, she was falsely accused of having shortages in her cash drawer; and
10. On a date to be specified, her Postmaster told her that she was not allowed to contact the Post Office Operations Manager (POOM).
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. 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). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment as alleged. The Agency maintained that assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all of her bases and claims, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and Complainant did not show that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Specifically, with respect to claim number 1, Complainant maintained that the Postmaster forgot that she had requested time off to attend a wedding. Management explained that the Postmaster did forget that Complainant had requested the time off but that he let her take the time anyway.
With respect to claim number 2, Complainant asserted that her time was not entered correctly into the system. Management indicated however, that it was Complainant that entered the information incorrectly and she ultimately received payment for the hours that she worked. With regard to claim number 3, the Postmaster denied having conversations about his dating life, or making comments about Complainant's chest. Witnesses indicated that they never heard the Postmaster have any conversations regarding personal matters with Complainant. Regarding, claim number 4, the manager admitted discussing personal information with Complainant but maintained that Complainant never indicated that it bothered her. Further, with respect to claim number 5, Complainant was not allowed to work at the Kintnersville Post Office because she was not qualified to work in that office as she was a PSE, level 4 and not a level 6 distribution clerk as her comparator was.
Regarding claim number 6, management indicated that Complainant was issued a Letter of Demand because money orders were missing from her cash drawer. The Agency explained that Letters of Demand are automatically issued when there is a deficiency in an employee's cash drawer. In the past, Complainant had received Letters of Demand for small amounts for which she repaid the sums owed. In this instance, larger amounts were missing so an investigation was conducted and it was determined that money orders were gone and that Complainant had used them for personal expenses.
Finally, with regard to Complainant's harassment claims, claims numbers 7, 8, 9, and 10. The record reveals that Complainant was repeatedly told to keep the rear door closed for safety purposes. In claim number 7, Complainant maintained that she was accused of leaving the door open. Complainant acknowledged that she had left the door open on multiple occasions to smoke or for other reasons. Therefore, management maintained that she was not falsely accused. With regard to claims 8 and 9, the Agency explained that Complainant was issued a Letter of Demand because she had a shortage in her cash drawer. The Agency indicated that an investigation proved that Complainant was properly issued the Letter of Demand. Complainant alleged in claim number 10, that she was told not to contact the POOM. Management indicated that she was told to follow the chain of command but she was allowed to talk to the POOM.
The Agency maintained that Complainant's sex, color, age, or prior EEO activity was not considered regarding these incidents and that she was not subjected to harassment.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant did not submit a brief on appeal. The Agency requests that its FAD be affirmed as Complainant has not provided any evidence which suggests that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Based on a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Agency's finding that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment. Assuming that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to all of her bases, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as was listed above. We find Complainant did not show that the nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. Complainant presented no evidence that discriminatory animus was involved in the Agency's actions and nor did she present any witnesses that supported her version of events. In this regard, we note that lack of persuasive evidence regarding claim 3.
Further, with respect to Complainant's claim that she was subjected to harassment, we find that even if we consider all of her claims in total, we find that the incidents complained of, for the most part, were mere work-related interactions that normally take place in the workplace, which were neither severe nor pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment.2 We specifically note with respect to claims 8 and 9 that an investigation supported the Agency's assertion that Complainant's cash drawer had money orders missing and that Complainant had cashed those money orders.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's FAD which found that Complainant did not show that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment.
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.
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
__8/16/17________________
Date
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 anti-discrimination statutes the Commission enforces are not general civility codes designed to protect against the "ordinary tribulations" of the workplace. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); see also Lassiter v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between an alleged harasser and a Complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). Instead, EEO laws address discriminatory conduct that alters the work environment. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120151430
6
0120151430