[Redacted], Anthony V., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 15, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002152 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 15, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Anthony V.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020002152 Hearing Nos. 550-2019-00228X 550-2019-00571X Agency Nos. 4E-980-0047-18 4E-980-0038-19 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s December 12, 2019 notice of final action 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. The Agency’s decision is AFFIRMED. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Seattle-Midtown Station in Seattle, Washington. On April 10, 2018, Complainant filed a formal complaint (Agency No. 4E-980-0047-18) alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO when on August 31, 2017, Complainant was involved in an argument with a coworker and subsequently on October 4, 2017, he was issued a proposed 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. 2020002152 2 Seven-Day Suspension, which was later reduced to a Letter of Warning through a January 2018 grievance decision. In a May 1, 2018 final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. Complainant appealed the Agency’s decision. On appeal, Complainant alleged that he had been “followed and harassed by the U.S. Postal Inspectors and the O.I.G. agents for several years,” and Complainant specifically listed four incidents occurring on February 16, 2018, February 17, 2018, April 17, 2018, and April 20, 2018. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120182067 (August 17, 2018) the Commission reversed the Agency’s dismissal of the January 11, 2018 Letter of Warning (which resulted from the proposed suspension). Additionally, the Commission found the February 2018 and April 2018 incidents Complainant referenced on appeal were not raised in the formal complaint and were not raised before the EEO Counselor. On April 18, 2019, Complainant filed a second formal complaint (Agency No. 4E-980-0038-19) alleging that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior protected EEO when: 1. On November 2, 2018, he was issued a Seven-Day Paper Suspension for Unacceptable Conduct dated November 1, 2018; 2. On November 29, 2018, he was issued a Notice of Fourteen-Day Paper Suspension for Unacceptable Conduct dated November 23, 2018; and 3. On unspecified dates, for the past seven years, he was stalked by the Postal Inspectors on and off the clock. The Agency issued a Notice of Partial Acceptance/Partial Dismissal accepting claims 1 and 2 for further processing. The Agency dismissed claim 3 for failure to state a claim due to lodging a collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum, specifically the U.S. Postal Inspection Services. After its investigation into the accepted issues from the two complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ issued a Notice/Order: Intent to Consider Issuance of Decision Without a Hearing on the consolidated complaints. Complainant and the Agency both filed responses to the Notice. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its notice of final action fully implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 2020002152 3 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. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s notice of final action fully implementing the AJ’s decision. 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. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 2020002152 4 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. 2020002152 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 March 15, 2021 Date