Eric S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 5, 20160120142415 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 5, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Eric S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120142415 Agency No. 4C-190-0099-13 DECISION On June 24, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s June 4, 2014, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a PSE Sales and Service Distribution Associate at the Landsdowne Post Office in Landsdowne, Pennsylvania. During the relevant time, the Supervisor, Customer Services was Complainant’s supervisor. On September 19, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (male) when: On June 10, 2013, the Postmaster called Complainant into the conference room and yelled at him; and his employment was terminated. 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. 0120142415 2 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 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 Agency’s decision found Complainant failed to establish he was subjected to discrimination. 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. (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”). At the outset, we note Complainant does not challenge the definition of the issues in his complaint. Moreover, we note Complainant does not allege that he was constructively discharged from the Agency. In the present case, Complainant alleged that on June 10, 2013, the Shop Steward called him into the conference room and the Postmaster yelled at him and told him to sit down and not say anything. Complainant stated he removed himself from the “hostile situation.” Complainant claimed the Postmaster terminated him and the Supervisor, Customer Services was involved in the decision to terminate him. Complainant stated that when he was walking out of the conference room the Postmaster stated “that[’]s rite [sic] and don[’]t ever come back.” The Postmaster stated Complainant was called into an office by the Supervisor, Customer Services to discuss an issue that had just occurred on the workroom floor and when Complainant arrived in the office he began yelling at his Shop Steward. The Postmaster indicated that he instructed Complainant to sit down and be quiet. The Postmaster stated he did not yell at Complainant. The Postmaster averred that he told Complainant to leave the building and not to return to work the following day. The Postmaster stated that Complainant said to him “I am not coming back ever” and at that time Complainant left the building. The Postmaster explained that a few minutes later Complainant returned and handed him his time card and ID badge. The Postmaster stated that Complainant’s actions were taken as a resignation. The Postmaster stated he did not terminate Complainant’s employment. The Postmaster explained that June 10, 2013, was Complainant’s last day of work and no disciplinary action was taken against Complainant. 0120142415 3 In her affidavit, the Supervisor, Customer Services stated that while she was working on June 10, 2013, she observed Complainant arguing with the Shop Steward on the workroom floor and she instructed both employees to report to the conference room. The Supervisor, Customer Services indicated that Complainant went into the conference room still yelling at the Shop Steward. She explained that the Postmaster instructed Complainant to sit down and be quiet but Complainant threw his scanner down in front of her and said he was leaving. The Supervisor, Customer Services affirmed that the Postmaster instructed Complainant not to report for work on the following day but Complainant stated he was never coming back. The Supervisor, Customer Services indicated that Complainant then left the building but returned a few minutes later and turned in his badge and timecard. The Supervisor, Customer Services noted that the Postmaster did not yell at Complainant and stated that Complainant was not terminated but rather resigned. In his affidavit, the Shop Steward explained that he and Complainant got into a loud discussion on the workroom floor concerning the letter carriers doing clerks’ work. The Shop Steward noted that both he and Complainant were told to go to the conference room. The Shop Steward stated that he was already seated along with the Supervisor, Customer Services and the Postmaster, when Complainant entered the room. The Shop Steward noted that when entering the room, Complainant made a comment and at that point, the Postmaster told him to sit down and not say anything. The Shop Steward averred that the Postmaster said it “forcefully” but was not yelling at Complainant. The Shop Steward noted that Complainant then turned around and left the room. The Shop Steward explained that the only time he raised his voice was on the workroom floor and he never even spoke to Complainant when they were in the conference room. Upon review, assuming Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination we find the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The record reveals that both Complainant and the Shop Steward were called into the conference room by the Supervisor, Customer Services due to their argument on the workroom floor. When Complainant entered the conference room, he yelled at the Shop Steward and the Postmaster told him to sit down and be quiet. Complainant stated that he removed himself from the “hostile situation.” With regard to Complainant’s contention that the Postmaster told him to never come back, both the Postmaster and the Supervisor, Customer Services stated that it was Complainant who left and said he was never coming back. The record reveals that Complainant was not terminated and that no disciplinary action was taken against him. Rather, the Agency noted that Complainant resigned from his position and never returned to work. Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Agency’s actions were a pretext for discrimination based on his race or sex. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. 0120142415 4 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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 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. The requests 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 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. 0120142415 5 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 October 5, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation