Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 20, 2015

0120133097 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 20, 2015)

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
(Northeast Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120133097

Agency No. 1B-102-0006-13

DECISION
On August 8, 2013, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s July 12, 2013, final
decision concerning his 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.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler at
the Morgan Processing & Distribution Center (P&DC) in New York, New York.

On February 1, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of sex (male) and age (61) when:

On September 6, 2012, Complainant’s request to management to be placed in a
Residual Bid at the Morgan P&DC or be allowed to keep the assignment he had been
working for the past year was denied.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, 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 him to discrimination as alleged.

0120133097

2

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. (November 9, 1999) (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”).
Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis first
enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v.
Worcester Found, for Experimental Biology. Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For Complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse
employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters

,
438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
Once a complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of production then shifts to
the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of
Com. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the Agency is successful, the burden
reverts back to Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Agency's reason(s) for its action was a pretext for discrimination. At all times, Complainant
retains the burden of persuasion, and it is her obligation to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993); U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens

, 460 U.S.
711, 715-16 (1983).
In the present case, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. The record reveals that the District Complement Coordinator administered the process
at issue of filling residual vacancies by unassigned craft employees. The District Complement
Coordinator stated that six unassigned Mail Handler employees, including Complainant, were
canvassed for the opportunity to submit their preference for assignment into a residual
vacancy. The District Complement Coordinator explained that only Employee 1,
Complainant's claimed comparative, submitted a preference for placement. The record reveals
that Employee 1 returned the canvass selection sheet indicating she desired to remain at the
Morgan P&DC, and she was subsequently placed into this position. The District Complement
Coordinator noted that all other employees, including Complainant, who did not submit their
preference for assignment were placed at management discretion as stated in the canvass
notice. The Agency stated Complainant was not denied his request to remain at the Morgan
P&DC because he never made such a request.
0120133097

3

In an attempt to show pretext, Complainant stated that he believed that management
discriminated against him because the Agency has an “agenda” to “get rid of people who have
served for long periods of time.” He claimed that not giving him an assignment at the Morgan
facility was a way to force him to leave.

Upon review, we find the record shows that Complainant was provided an opportunity to make
known his desire to remain at the Morgan facility, but he failed to avail himself of the
opportunity. In his affidavit, Complainant acknowledged that he did not bid on a residual
vacancy. Rather, Complainant states that he told the District Complement Coordinator that he
wished to remain in his position after the process was completed and before he was sent to his
new assignment at Grand Central Station. In contrast, the record reveals that Employee 1
timely returned the canvass form expressing her desire to be placed into the residual vacancy at
the Morgan P&DC, and she was placed into the position. We find Complainant failed to show
that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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.
0120133097

4
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 20, 2015