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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 5, 2022

Appeal No. 2021000781 (E.E.O.C. May. 5, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lenny M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021000781 Hearing No. 541-2017-00094X Agency No. 1E-802-0023-16 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s October 15, 2020 final order 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisor, Distribution Operations, EAS-17 at the Agency’s Denver National Distribution Center in Denver, Colorado. On October 4, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (male) when, on three separate occasions since 2015, including June 21, 2016, Complainant was not selected for Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO) positions.2 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. 2 The Agency dismissed several additional allegations for untimely EEO Counselor contact, including two non-selections that occurred in September 2015 and October 2015. In addition, the Agency dismissed reprisal as a basis of discrimination. The EEOC Administrative Judge 2021000781 2 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 AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency. In the decision, the AJ determined that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that Complainant identifies as an African-American male, and he alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race and sex when it did not select him for the June 2016 MDO selection, yet the individual selected for the position was also an African-American male. Thus, the AJ concluded that Complainant could not meet his burden of proving a prima facie case because there was no evidence that he was treated differently than similarly situated individuals outside his protected race or sex. The AJ determined that there was no other evidence in the record demonstrating discriminatory animus. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment as alleged. 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. (AJ) assigned to the matter determined that the claims and basis of discrimination were properly dismissed, but would consider the untimely discrete claims as background evidence in support of Complainant’s hostile work environment claim. The Commission can find no basis to disturb the Agency’s dismissal and the AJ’s affirmance in this regard. 2021000781 3 Construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant. Specifically, the selecting official affirmed that while working with both Complainant and the selectee as Acting MDOs, Complainant’s performance and follow-up were lacking while the selectee performed better. The selecting official noted that both candidates interviewed equally, but he determined that the selectee was better qualified based on his observations. Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency officials in this matter harbored discriminatory animus. The Commission finds that Complainant has not proffered any evidence demonstrating that his qualifications for the position were plainly superior to the selectee’s or that the Agency's explanation for its actions was pretext for discrimination. 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 or subjected to a hostile work environment as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting 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. 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. 2021000781 4 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. 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. 2021000781 5 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 May 5, 2022 Date