[Redacted], Toshia F., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 2, 2022Appeal No. 2021005138 (E.E.O.C. May. 2, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Toshia F.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2021005138 Hearing No. 530-2021-00051X Agency No. 4C-190-0134-19 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s September 1, 2021 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Post Office in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. On December 2, 2019 (and later amended), Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (female), age (57), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On August 10, 2019, she was issued a Seven-Day Suspension; 2. Since December 3, 2019, she was not permitted to use the optional start time of 7:30 a.m., which has resulted in denial of overtime opportunities; 3. In late November 2019, Complainant was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI); 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. 2021005138 2 4. On December 23, 2019, management contacted her while she was on annual leave in an attempt to bully her; 5. On an unspecified date, she reported to her Postmaster and to Human Resources that she no longer felt safe at work due to the harassment she received from management as well as union officers and members, but neither the Postmaster nor Human Resources took appropriate action; 6. On April 30, 2020, her supervisor accused her of not responding to a text message on her scanner; 7. On unspecified dates, she was bypassed for overtime despite being on the Overtime Desired List; and 8. On May 30, 2020, and other dates, her supervisor refused her request to change her schedule. 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 the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. For example, regarding Claim 1, the Agency explained Complainant was previously issued a PDI for her failure to follow instructions and unacceptable performance when she continued to manually manipulate clock rings. She was issued a Seven-Day Suspension for failing to desist from manually manipulating clock rings. With respect to Claim 3, Complainant was given a PDI for disrespectful behavior when talking to her supervisor and had been overheard screaming at her supervisor over the phone. However, Complainant was not disciplined as a result of this PDI. Regarding Complainant’s allegations that she was denied overtime opportunities in Claims 2 and 7, all City Carriers were offered the opportunity to use a voluntary early start time during the December 2019 peak holiday season. Additionally, Complainant’s time and attendance records showed she regularly worked overtime during the period December 2019 through July 2020. With respect to Claim 8, the AJ found that Complainant was granted emergency annual leave on May 30, 2020. With regard to the texts between Complainant and her supervisor in Claim 4, the evidence showed on December 23, 2019, Complainant’s supervisor texted her to remind her that she had volunteered to work on Christmas Eve. Complainant responded that she would not be working on Christmas Eve due to a change in a return flight. Complainant felt that text messages from her supervisor constituted harassment. The AJ found that the Agency responded to Complainant's complaint regarding her claims of harassment by her co-worker. 2021005138 3 The Postmaster called a meeting with Complainant to discuss her claims, where Complainant became irate and raised her voice at the Postmaster during her meeting with him. A PDI was held with the co-worker and he was issued a Letter of Warning. Other than her conclusory assertions, the AJ determined that Complainant had not presented any evidence which showed the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory animus. As a result, the AJ concluded that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. 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 or retaliatory 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 or retaliated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 2021005138 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). 2021005138 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 May 2, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation