[Redacted], Shaniqua W., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 20, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005144 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Shaniqua W.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Appeal No. 2021005144 Agency No. 4B-006-0074-20 DECISION On September 8, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s August 13, 2021, 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. 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 Full-Time Sales, Services and Distribution Associate at the Agency’s Rio Blanco, Puerto Rico Post Office in Rio Blanco, Puerto Rico. On December 14, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female) when: 1. A few days before June 27, 2020, she was ordered to cover her manager's vacations and was not provided with a properly completed PS Form 1723; 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. 2021005144 2 2. On June 30, 2020, her manager called her on the phone to yell at her, stating that she had to do her job with or without a PS Form 1723; 3. On July 3, 2020, management called to question her about not working on Thursday when the PS Form 1723 stated she was off on Saturday; 4. On July 10, 2020, her manager became aggressive with her and, before she granted her request for sick leave, she gave her direct orders that she had to do her job; 5. On July 11, 14, 18, and 21, 2020 and August 15 and 22, 2020, she was not paid the differential in salary when she fulfilled the reports allowed by eAccess that were related to the Delivery Management System (DMS); 6. On July 21, 2020, she was ordered to transfer stamps without signing a PS Form 1723; 7. On July 22, 2020, she requested sick leave and her manager wrote a false statement on the PS Form 3971; 8. On August 7, 2020, her manager yelled at her and accused her of creating a hostile work environment and that work was not being done on time; 9. On August 15, 2020, she reported a hostile work environment to management but there was no follow up; 10. On August 31, 2020, her manager yelled at her in front of customers; 11. On September 2, 2020, her manager came close to physically assaulting her and she was placed off-duty on Emergency Placement; and 12. On October 19, 2020, her manager kicked her out of her office. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision (FAD) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the FAD, the Agency enumerated each of the above clams from Complainant and determined that Complainant either failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, or failed to show that the Agency's articulated, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. For example, the Agency explained that the record established that daily tasks, such as transferring stamp stock, were common and not exclusively a supervisory task. 2021005144 3 In addition, the Agency noted that on occasion Complainant refused to follow the directions of a superior official and showed aggression while acting in a manner which led management to believe Complainant may be a danger to herself or others. Moreover, the Agency also found that Complainant failed to show that the above claims resulted in a hostile work environment. To this end, the Agency found that Complainant failed to show that management's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment, or unreasonably interfere with her work performance. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment as alleged. Complainant nor the Agency has submitted argument on appeal. 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 Chap. 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”). Upon careful review of the record, we find that the Agency’s final decision accurately recounted the relevant facts. The final decision also correctly identified the legal standard for Complainant to prove that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, as well as sex discrimination. Concerning her allegations of disparate treatment discrimination, she must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Concerning her allegations of a hostile work environment, we note that Harris v. Forklift Systems. Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) is controlling. Both on appeal and in the FAD, the Agency has considered all of the circumstances and found that there was no discriminatory intent regarding Complainant’s treatment. The record does not show that Complainant was subject to harassment or discrimination, nor is there additional evidence on appeal which would support such a contention. The Commission reiterates that Complainant bears the burden, at all times, to prove the Agency's actions were due to discriminatory animus. Rather, the Commission is an impartial arbiter of the facts held within the file. Upon review of the file, we have found no reason to invalidate the findings in the FAD. In addition, we note that disharmonious workplace conduct can, in the normal course of things, become acrimonious. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (holding that personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between a supervisor and complainant do not rise to the level of harassment); see also Doan v. Dep't of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120111 (Apr. 18, 2013). 2021005144 4 Nonetheless, in the present case, the record does not support a finding of illegal discrimination on the part of the Agency. Based on a thorough review of the record, we find that the final decision 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 decision finding no discrimination. 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. 2021005144 5 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. 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 December 20, 2022 Date