[Redacted], Sonia B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 14, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000238 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 14, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sonia B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000238 Agency No. 4F-926-0065-20 DECISION On October 14, 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 September 9, 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 Supervisor, Customer Service, EAS-17 at the Agency’s Ida Jean Haxton Station in Huntington Beach, California. On June 3, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Native American), sex (female), and color (black) when: 1. In February of 2019, prior to her arrival to the Ida Jean Haxton Station of the Huntington Beach Post Office, the Station Manager gave a stand-up talk to tell everyone that they were getting a new supervisor who was an African American lady. 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. 2022000238 2 2. Beginning in February of 2019 and continuing, she was treated less favorably than other employees. 3. Beginning February of 2019 and continuing, the Station Manager would treat her in a rude manner in front of employees. 4. On an unspecified date, the Station Manager would speak in Spanish and say how worthless she was in front of other employees. 5. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, the Station Manager made her work more difficult and repeatedly told other supervisors not to provide her any assistance. 6. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, she was constantly required to perform more work than other supervisors. 7. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, she was repeatedly berated in front of other employees. 8. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, the Station Manager would repeatedly interrupt her during the most critical hour of the day, making it difficult to perform her work duties and embarrassing her in front of the carriers. 9. On unspecified date(s), she was given instructions to harass the shop steward and carriers during their authorized union time. 10. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, she was held accountable for operational failures or incidents involving clerks and the window section which occurred on her day off. 11. Beginning in January of 2019 through December of 2019, she was routinely required to supervise the entire floor while male supervisors were provided assistance to perform the same tasks. 12. Beginning in February of 2019 through December of 2019, she was not provided with essential training to perform her job. 13. In August of 2019, she was given an Investigative Interview. 14. On or about December of 2019, the Station Manager instructed the Acting Supervisor (204-B) not to provide her with assistance. 2022000238 3 15. On or about December of 2019, she was humiliated in front of employees when the Station Manager took her clipboard and stated she was not going to run the floor today. 16. In December of 2019, she was forced to change her work schedule. 17. Beginning February of 2019 through December of 2019, the Station Manager repeatedly yelled at her, spoke to her in an angry tone, and stated nothing is ever done by her. 18. On or about December of 2019, she was told she should quit. 19. On January 3, 2020, she was displaced from her position without agreement and assigned the closing supervisor position. 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). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant’s manager (Station Manager) was the Postmaster of the Haxton Station. Regarding claim 1, an unsworn witness statement indicated that Station Manager called all A.M. tour clerks for a stand-up meeting on February 14, 2019. The statement indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to talk about job performance and safety issues. The witness indicated that Station Manager also reported that the Haxton Station was getting a new A.M. supervisor, an “African American lady.” The witness wrote that Station Manager indicated that Complainant “is hard but fair toward the employees.” An additional unsworn witness statement also indicated that Station Manager mentioned that Complainant was African American during this meeting. Complainant clarified in her affidavit that “less favorably” in claim 2 referred to the conduct explicitly described in claims 3 - 19. Regarding claims 16 and 19, Complainant admitted that the changes described in these claims did not actually take place. Rather, she reported that she was informed of the potential changes in Complainant’s schedule and/or position sought by Station Manager but that the changes were never officially made. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. 2022000238 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. 2022000238 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 14, 2022 Date