[Redacted], Amie H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 2, 2023Appeal No. 2022002266 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2023) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Amie H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022002266 Hearing No. 510-2021-00132X Agency No. 1G-321-0040-20 DECISION Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s March 2, 2022, final decision 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. 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 Agency’s Jacksonville Processing and Distribution Center in Jacksonville, Florida. On May 2, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on January 22, 2020, she reported to management that a coworker (CW) had pushed her, and management did not investigate in a 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. 2022002266 2 timely manner. Complainant did not challenge the framing of the complaint after she received the Agency’s Notice of Acceptance, and we therefore find the complaint is properly framed. 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 requested a hearing, but the AJ dismissed the hearing request on the grounds that Complainant had failed to comply with several of the AJ’s orders. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency, and the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).2 The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. In its final decision, the Agency found that management had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions that Complainant failed to rebut as pretextual. Complainant alleged that on January 22, 2020, CW pushed into her while she was standing in line to sign out equipment. She confronted CW, and he responded that he had not pushed her on purpose but was pushed into her. The same day, she reported the incident to the president of her union and was advised to report it to Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO1). Complainant averred that MDO1 promised her that another Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO2) would investigate the matter. Complainant stated that she asked CW on January 28 and 31, 2020, whether anyone had spoken to him about the pushing incident, and he told her that no one had. MDO2 averred that he was not working when the incident occurred, but he later met with Complainant to hear her version of what had taken place. According to MDO2, Complainant told him that she felt CW had bumped into her on purpose. MDO2 stated he conducted his investigation about a week or two after the incident because he was initially unable to reach CW, who was on a different tour of duty and had been on leave for a few days. When MDO2 spoke to CW, CW stated that he had lost his balance while waiting in line with Complainant and that he had immediately apologized to Complainant after bumping into her. Based on his interviews with Complainant and CW, MDO2 concluded that no further action was required. He averred that he verbally informed Complainant of his decision while the union president was present. The Agency found that, while MDO2 could have acted more promptly, Complainant failed to show management’s delay was motivated by retaliation, nor could she prove that MDO2 had conducted other investigations faster under similar circumstances. The Agency therefore concluded Complainant had failed to establish that she was subjected to discrimination by the Agency based on reprisal. 2 On appeal, Complainant generally argues that she is “entitled to a fair hearing” and that she will “have an opportunity to seek discovery” “when this case continues.” However, Complainant’s brief does not address the AJ’s dismissal of her hearing request due to her failure to comply with the AJ’s orders or to act with due diligence in pursuing her claim, nor does she argue that the AJ erred in dismissing her request as a sanction for that failure. Because Complainant has not directly disputed the AJ’s dismissal, we will not address the AJ’s decision to deny Complainant’s hearing request. 2022002266 3 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”). Assuming Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on reprisal, we find that the Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its response to Complainant’s complaint against CW. MDO2 had been absent on the day of the incident and then had some difficulty in locating CW to interview him. Once MDO2 heard CW’s explanation in addition to Complainant’s version of events, MDO2 concluded that CW’s actions did not violate Agency policy and relayed that decision to Complainant verbally. We find that Complainant failed to provide persuasive evidence of pretext or otherwise establish that discriminatory animus played a role in this matter. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). Furthermore, we find that Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in her protected groups who were treated differently under similar circumstances. Upon careful review of the evidence of record, including the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the Agency correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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. 2022002266 4 Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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. 2022002266 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 February 2, 2023 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation