Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 19, 20140120130484 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 19, 2014) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 , Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120130484 Hearing No. 530-2010-00198X Agency No. 4C-080-0085-09 DECISION Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant’s appeal from the Agency’s October 31, 2012 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’s review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mailpiece Design Analyst (MDA) at the Agency’s Delaware Processing and Distribution Center in Wilmington, Delaware. On June 8, 2009, Complainant received a notice informing her that, effective June 15, 2009, her primary reporting location was being changed to the South Jersey District Office in Bellmawr, New Jersey. The change in reporting location occurred after the Agency underwent a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) which resulted in the South Jersey District Office absorbing a portion of the Central Jersey District and reduced the number of MDAs from three to one in the District. Complainant was initially granted permission to work at the Delaware Processing and Distribution Center two days per week while reporting to the District Office three days a week. Complainant was given an extension until June 29, 2009, to report to her new assignment. Complainant went out on extended leave prior to the date she was to begin reporting to the new location. An employee (CW1) was detailed to her position for the duration of her absence. While she was out, a customer requested to meet with her about their manifest mailing system 0120130484 2 and intelligent mail bar code. CW1 met with the customer; however, the issue was not resolved. Complainant met with the customer when she returned, and the issue was resolved. On September 17, 2009, Complainant was instructed to begin reporting to the District Office full-time on September 21, 2009. On October 17, 2009, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity as evidenced by multiple incidents including, inter alia, she was informed her reporting location was being changed; she was forced to do the work of three employees; she was subjected to unnecessary travel and an unnecessary appointment; she was threatened she would be forced to report to the District five days per week and was required to do so after filing an EEO complaint. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, but the AJ assigned to the case granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency and issued a decision on October 9, 2012. In her decision, the AJ determined that the alleged incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment. Additionally, the AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the primary reasons given by Complainant’s supervisors for their actions in this case were the consolidation of Post Office districts and the resultant reduction in the work force that occurred. When the RIF was implemented, the overall number of personnel was also reduced, leaving the district with one MDA instead of three. Since the office in Bellmawr, NJ was central to the entire district (including Wilmington, DE), management thought it best to have the remaining MDA, Complainant, work from the Bellmawr office in order to provide the best level of efficiency for all of its customers. By having Complainant primarily report to the Bellmawr office instead of Wilmington, management was able to meet these legitimate goals, making the increased travel by Complainant necessary to do her job well. With regard to Complainant doing the work of three employees, the RIF reduced the workforce in her department to one-third its size in addition to taking on more territory. Complainant had been duly notified that this was a possibility, and there was nothing management could do about the increased workload. As to Complainant’s claim of an unnecessary appointment, her supervisor (S1) stated that a customer specifically requested to speak with Complainant, as she was the regional MDA. Since Complainant was out on leave at the time, S1 made an appointment for a meeting for when Complainant returned, an arrangement which was agreed to by the customer. S1 was merely performing her job duties. Finally, with respect to requiring Complainant to report to Bellmawr five days a week instead of three, the Agency stated that Complainant’s absence from Bellmawr two days a week disrupted the district office’s customer service in her area. Further, the Business Mail Entry 0120130484 3 Manager (M1) stated that the decision was made solely in the interest of satisfying the operational needs of the South Jersey District Office. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to refute the Agency’s reasons for its actions. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. Complainant filed the instant appeal without submitting any arguments or contentions in support. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non- moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp. , 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. Hostile Work Environment Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion or prior EEO activity is unlawful, if it is sufficiently patterned or pervasive. Wibstad v. U.S. Postal Serv. (citing , EEOC Appeal No. 01972699 (Aug. 14, 1998) McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-39 (D.C. Cir. 1985)); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3, 9 (Mar. 8, 1994). In determining that a working environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the alleged discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and if it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. ; Enforcement Guidance at 6. The Supreme Court has stated that: “Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile work environment - an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive - is beyond Title VII's purview.” , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) Harris . , 510 U.S. at 22 (1993) In the instant case, the Commission finds that the AJ properly issued summary judgment as the material facts are undisputed. Here, Complainant alleged that based on her protected classes, she was subjected to a hostile work environment. Complainant has cited several incidents where Agency management took actions that seemed adverse or disruptive to her including, inter alia, changing her reporting location and subjecting her to extra work, travel, and an unnecessary appointment. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, the Commission agrees with the AJ that Complainant has not shown she was subjected to a discriminatory or retaliatory hostile work environment. Even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, Complainant failed to show that any of the alleged incidents were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The record evidence reveals that due to restructuring, 0120130484 4 Agency Headquarters eliminated all MDA positions except Complainant’s, and her reporting location was changed to the District Office in Bellmawr, which was a central location to serve all of the surrounding territory. ROI, at 124. The entire district was impacted by this restructuring and many employees either lost their jobs, had to move to another location, or endure long commutes to their new locations. Id. at 125. In an effort to ease the impact of the restructuring, Complainant was temporarily permitted to remain in Delaware for two days and to report to the District Office in Bellmawr three days a week. Id. Management determined that this arrangement was not successful as Complainant’s absence at the District Office two days a week resulted in customer service deficiencies. Id. at 154. As a result, Complainant was instructed to report to the District Office full-time. ROI, Ex. 3. In addition, while Complainant’s workload increased because she was the sole MDA for the district, her assigned duties and responsibilities did not change. ROI, at 136. Finally, Complainant was scheduled for the appointment at issue at the customer’s request; however, Complainant was out on leave at the time, and CW1 attended in her place. Id . at 138. The issue was not fully resolved, and Complainant later met with customer to resolve the issue. Complainant failed to present evidence rebutting the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. As a result, the Commission finds no basis to disturb the AJ's summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. CONCLUSION After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final order, because the Administrative Judge’s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that discrimination occurred. 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 0120130484 5 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. 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 0120130484 6 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 September 19, 2014 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation