Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 12, 2015

0120141936 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 12, 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
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120141936

Hearing No. 430-2013-00062X

Agency No. 4K-280-0079-12

DECISION
On April 23, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s April 20, 2014 final order
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. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final order.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed as a Rural
Carrier at the Agency’s Post Office in Monroe, North Carolina and was detailed as “Officer in
Charge” to the Post Office in Marshville, North Carolina. On June 15, 2012, Complainant
filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race
(Caucasian), color (White), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity by subjecting her
to harassment when:

1. Her manager asked another employee to replace her as Officer in Charge
(“OIC"), Marshvillle;

2. Complainant was denied the 5% increase for the work she performed while on
detail as OIC, Marshville;

3. Her eTravel reimbursement submitted on March 6, 2012, was not approved;
0120141936

2

4. The Marshville Postmaster came to the office to count the stock in preparation
for her return to the office; and Complainant's Manager did not inform
Complainant that Complainant was being replaced as OIC;

5. Complainant's request to be detailed to the Wingate Post Office as OIC was
denied;

6. Complainant was advised she was not being given a detail to the Matthews Post
Office as previously offered. Complainant was also advised she would be
returning to the Monroe Post Office;

7. For the period between April 28, 2012 and May 1, 2012 Complainant was
charged LWOP;

8. Complainant spoke to her manager on the telephone about overdue back pay
from eTravel. Her Manager was rude and nasty and told Complainant she could
do whatever she wanted with it. Whether she approved it or disapproved it
Complainant would have to wait until she got ready and then she hung up; and

9. Complainant's access to eTravel program was revoked despite her pending
reports.

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 EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, and the AJ held a hearing
and issued a decision on April 2, 2014. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting
the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld
if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual
finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint

, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
An AJ’s credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice
of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the
testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit
it. See

EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at § VI.B. (November 9, 1999).
0120141936

3

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In order to establish a claim of harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) she is a member
of 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 the 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 to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee

, 682 F.2d
897 (11th Cir. 1982).
Here, the AJ found that the Agency proved that each of the allegedly harassing or retaliatory
acts was undertaken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. AJ Decision at 6-8. More
importantly, the AJ concluded that there was no evidence that any of the claimed harassing
actions taken by Agency management were based on Complainant’s race, color or prior
protected EEO activity. Id

. Our review of the record supports this conclusion. There is no
evidence, for example, of race-based ridicule or criticism of EEO activity that would support
an inference of discriminatory animus. Without evidence of this nature, Complainant's claim
fails.

CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order.

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,
0120141936

4
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.

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
February 12, 2015