[Redacted], Elfrieda R., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003166 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Elfrieda R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020003166 Hearing No. 560-2017-00277X Agency No. 4G-730-0063-16 DECISION On April 18, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s March 26, 2020, 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier, P- 00/01, at the Oklahoma City Post Office, Santa Fe Carrier Unit in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. On December 14, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (White), national origin (Hispanic), sex (female), disability (carpal tunnel), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when: 1. On March 16, 2016, she was accused of saying her manager changed the numbers on the route count; 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. 2020003166 2 2. On March 16, 2016, during a discussion regarding her speaking loudly, her manager stated, “Yes, because you are Hispanic”; 3. On March 16, 2016, management brought in an interpreter to provide her with work instructions; 4. On April 13, 2016, after discussing working additional duties in the office, her supervisor instructed her to go home; 5. On or about April 15, 2016, she was issued a letter of warning; 6. On or about April 28, 2018, she was issued a letter of warning; 7. On May 5, 2016, and dates to be provided, management made fun of the way she spoke English; 8. Since May 5, 2016, on dates to be provided, she was not permitted to start earlier than 06:30 a.m. like her coworkers; 9. On July 2, 2016, she became aware that management failed to post Route #36 in a timely manner; 10. On or about August 23, 2016, October 26, 2016, and dates to be provided, after reporting that she was not being provided with adequate equipment to perform her duties, management failed to properly address the matter; 11. On September 2, 2016, she was issued a seven-day suspension; 12. On or about September 2, 2016, she notified management that she was not being paid correctly for mileage and the proper pay for delivering Route #36; 13. On September 30, 2016, she notified management that she believed that her manager’s behavior toward her constituted sexual harassment; 14. On October 14, 2016, she was issued a 14-day suspension; 15. On October 20, 2016, management questioned her about an article found open in her hamper; 16. On October 22, 2016, and dates to be provided, she was spoken to in a rude and demeaning manner; 17. On October 25, 2016, she was subjected to an investigative interview; 18. On January 6, 2017, she was subjected to an investigative interview; 19. On January 17, 2017, after submitting two, PS-Form 1767s, Report of Hazard, Unsafe Condition or Practice, management failed to properly address the matter; 20. On January 25, 2017, she was subjected to an investigative interview; 21. On January 25, 2017, management failed to complete the forms she submitted to report a dog attack; 22. On February 2, 2017, after submitting two, PS-Form 1767s, Report of Hazard, Unsafe Condition or Practice, management failed to properly address the matter; 23. On February 2, 2017, she was subjected to an investigative interview; and 24. On February 2, 2017, she was placed on emergency placement in an off-duty status.2 2 We note that Complainant’s formal complaint originally contained a total of 27 claims. Our review of the Agency’s Notice of Partial Acceptance/Partial Dismissal of Formal EEO Complaint, shows that the Agency dismissed claims 25-27 for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as the claims involved issues related to the collective bargaining 2020003166 3 After its investigation into the complaint, 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 timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing, which Complainant opposed. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. On March 26, 2020, the Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. agreement. As Complainant has not challenged the dismissal of these claims, we shall only address the claims listed herein. 2020003166 4 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. 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). 2020003166 5 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 (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 29, 2021 Date