Christena H.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 28, 20190120170814 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 28, 2019) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Christena H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120170814 Agency No. 4C400004516 DECISION On December 29, 2016, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s December 20, 2016, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. ISSUES PRESENTED Whether Complainant was subjected to discriminatory harassment based on race and sex when: 1. On April 7, 2016, and other dates, S1, a supervisor, would not provide her payroll check; 2. On dates to be specified, S1 left notes on her case that had nothing to do with her; 3. On dates to be specified, S1 sorted through her mail and threw it on the floor; 4. On dates to be specified, S1 hounded her by continually asking her the same questions; 5. On dates to be specified, her truck broke down and S1 left her on the street for hours; 6. On a date to be specified in March 2016, S1 made a false claim that she pushed her; and 7. On April 17, 2016, she was given a pre-disciplinary interview (PDI). 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. 0120170814 2 BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier at the Agency’s Lyndon Branch facility in Columbus, Ohio. On July 8, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African- American) and sex (female) as set forth above. The Agency denied Complainant’s allegations; and asserted that she was not subjected to harassment as alleged. Claim 1: On April 7, 2016, and other dates, Complainant alleged that a supervisor, S1, would not follow the instructions of the Manager, S2, to provide her payroll check on Thursdays; therefore, other supervisors had to obtain Complainant’s payroll check and place it in her drawer for her. She asserted that when S2 was absent, S1 would fail to provide her payroll check and would explain that she could not issue checks until after 4:00 p.m. S1 explained that, consistent with Agency policy, payroll checks could not be issued until after 4:00 p.m., on Thursdays; that the policy was explained to Complainant, and a copy of the applicable memorandum provided to her; and that S2 may have given paychecks to Complainant before the stipulated time because the two were friends. Claim 2: Complainant alleged that S1 wrote notes about work issues, even if she was not at fault; that S1 would not verify if the problems even occurred on her route before blaming her for the issues; and that when she showed the notes to them, management would crumble them and instruct her to ignore them. S1 testified that she would leave notes at Complainant’s case that pertained to problems with her route. S1 asserted that she would also provide Complainant with an explanation. S1 explained that because Complainant’s immediate supervisor, B1, would leave at 2:00 p.m., she would take phone calls related to Complainant’s route; document, date and sign a piece of paper which explained the problems discussed on the phone calls, and; she provided copies to Complainant and her supervisor, so they could return the customers phone call. S1 testified that she did this for all the carriers. The record contained notes from S1 regarding complaints or inquiries from customers regarding their mail that had not been delivered. Claim 3: On May 21 and May 25, 2016, Complainant alleged that S1 sorted through her mail, which was left in the tub for a reason as verified by scans and threw it on the floor. According to Complainant, when she returned to the station, the mail was spread across the floor, and she took pictures of it. 0120170814 3 She claims that S1 was always trying to get her in trouble; and that she showed S2 the pictures, but nothing was done. S1 stated that she had no knowledge concerning this allegation. S1 denied sorting through Complainant’s mail and throwing it on the floor. Claim 4: Complainant alleged that, on a daily basis in December, S1 asked her if she was going to make it back on time for the truck, which was strange because she only missed the truck twice in eighteen years. S1 denied “hounding” Complainant as alleged. She explained that in December, it got dark early, therefore, out of concern, she would ask the carriers if they were ok or needed assistance in completing their routes. Claim 5: On March 2, 2016, her truck broke down and S1 left her on the street for hours. Complainant alleged that she called the office, but nobody answered; therefore, she called the postal cell phone and S1 answered but stated she was on a call and there was nothing she could do to help her. Complainant stated that she then sent a text message to S2 about one and a half hours later; that S2 and another supervisor (S3) showed up at the wrong address; that the vehicle has broken down at least four times at the same location but is still in use; and that she does not know of any other carriers who received similar treatment. S1 asserted that Complainant called in on March 2, 2016 at 1:58 p.m. to report that she had a door problem and that she had no knowledge of Complainant being left on the street for hours by her supervisor. In regard to Complainant’s allegation that her truck broke down at one location at least four times, S1 stated that on one occasion, June 24, 2016, Complainant’s truck broke down and she accompanied B1 to bring Complainant another vehicle and call the wrecker service. S1 testified that she had no recollection of any other incidents when Complainant’s truck broke down. Claim 6: On an unknown date in March 2016, Complainant alleged that S1 made a false claim that she pushed her. Complainant asserted that she only heard of this allegation after she filed the instant EEO complaint.; and that S1 made this false claim about her. S1 denied ever making such an allegation. S2 was not aware of any such allegation. Claim 7: On April 17, 2016, she was given a pre-disciplinary interview (PDI). Complainant alleged that B1 conducted the PDI with her because she allegedly threatened S1, which was not true, as she only 0120170814 4 asked S1 why she lied about Complainant’s paycheck; and that no disciplined was issued after the PDI. Complainant alleged that she reported her concerns about being subjected to discriminatory harassment to management and the Union; however, nothing was done so she filed the instant complaint. S2 and B1 denied any awareness of the particular PDI alleged by Complainant occurring on April 17, 2016; however, they explained that PDI’s had been held with Complainant on other occasions for not scanning packages and for tardiness. S2 testified that she held PDI’s with Complainant on June 2, 2016 for not scanning packages, and on July 22, 2016 for tardiness. B1 stated that he believed he conducted a PD1 with Complainant regarding tardiness, but he did not recall the specifics, as he did so many. 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 as alleged. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL Neither party submitted statements on appeal. 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 To prevail in a disparate treatment claim absent direct evidence of discrimination, Complainant must satisfy the evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing 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. Co. 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, 441 U.S. at 802 n.13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs 0120170814 5 v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the reason proffered by the Agency was a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discriminatory harassment based on race and sex; we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency explained that Complainant’s paycheck was provided to her at the standard time which was consistent with applicable policy; that as with other employees, notes left by S1 were work-related; that Complainant’s mail was not thrown on the floor; Complainant was not left stranded; S1 never claimed that Complainant pushed her; and that Complainant received a PDI for failing to follow instructions and for tardiness. Complainant did not provide any persuasive evidence that the Agency’s reasons were a pretext or that discriminatory animus played any role. With respect to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant’s claim of a hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of these actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). Regarding the remaining allegation of harassment, i.e., S1 “hounding” her daily in December with questions, we find that even if this matter occurred as alleged by Complainant, we do not find that it rises to the level of unlawful harassment. First, we find no persuasive evidence that Complainant’s race or sex played a role. Moreover, we do not find S1’s conduct to have been either severe or pervasive enough to have alter the Complainant’s employment and create an abusive working environment. On the contrary, this appears to have been a normal work-related interaction. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. 0120170814 6 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. 0120170814 7 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 February 28, 2019 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation