Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 22, 2015

01-2014-1616-0500 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 22, 2015)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120141616

Agency No. 1C-152-0009-13

DECISION
On March 25, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s February 26, 2014 final
decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq

. Our review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Operation
Support Specialist at the Pittsburgh Distribution Center in Warrendale, Pennsylvania.
Complainant was detailed from her EAS-18 position to an EAS-20 position effective December
1, 2012. The dates for the assignment were from December 1 through December 28, 2012,
December 29, 2012 through January 25, 2013, and from March 16, 2013 through June 7,
2013.

On September 10, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the
Agency discriminated against her on the basis of her age (58) when on May 16, 2013, she was
advised that her detail to a EAS-20 position would end on May 17, 2013. 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).

0120141616

2
In its decision, the Agency found that assuming arguendo Complainant set forth a prima facie
case of age discrimination, it articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for ending
Complainant’s detail in May 2013. The Operation Support Specialist explained that he had
been instructed to improve budget performance by the District Manager, and one of the ways
he could accomplish this was by reducing the number of details that involved upgrades. Thus,
according to the Operation Support Specialist, the reason that Complainant’s detail ended was
because it was more economical to utilize the Supervisor, Distribution Operations, who was
already at the EAS-20 level, in the EAS-20 detail.

According to the Plant Manager, she recalled discussing with the Operation Support Specialist
that it would be more economical and prudent to detail the Supervisor, Distribution Operations
to the position Complainant was occupying. The Plant Manager responded that pursuant to a
facility review, there was much criticism of the use of higher level details and she decided to
ask her managers to reduce higher level details where it made sense. The Agency determined
that Complainant failed to offer evidence that its explanation was a pretext for discrimination.
Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We shall assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of age
discrimination with regard to being removed from her EAS-20 detail position. The Agency
explained that Complainant was removed from the detail based on budgetary considerations.
According to the Agency, there had been criticism of the facility’s use of higher level details.
As a result, the Plant Manager requested that her managers reduce higher level details where it
made sense. We find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
decision to conclude Complainant’s detail.

Complainant attempts to establish pretext by noting that in her mid-year evaluation, on June 4,
2013, she was described as having performed her duties with little or no oversight needed, that
she had a great wealth of knowledge and took enormous pride in her work. However,
Complainant admitted that the Operation Support Specialist told her that the end of her detail
was in response to a mandate to reduce upgrades to higher level details, not due to her
performance. Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant has submitted no
persuasive argument or evidence to establish that her removal from her EAS-20 detail was
attributable to her age. Complainant has not established that the Agency’s explanation was
pretext intended to mask discriminatory intent.

CONCLUSION
The Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.

0120141616

3

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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 or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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.

0120141616

4
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL

(Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an
attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or
denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney
with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and
the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to
File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

Date
April 22, 2015