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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 9, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004700 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 9, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Wilmer M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020004700 Hearing No. 520201900406X Agency No. 1B061004718 DECISION Complainant timely appealed, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s April 16, 2020 Final Order concerning an 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Electronic Technician (“ET”), Level 10, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center ("P&DC") in Providence, Rhode Island. On October 15, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint (“Complaint 1”) alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of reprisal (current and prior EEO activity)2 when: 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. 2020004700 2 1. On July 4, 2018, Management required him to work a holiday, 2. On September 10, 2018, Management did not consider him for a Tour 2 detail assignment, and, 3. On October 17, 2018, Management notified him that he would be assigned to work on Tour 1. On August 24, 2019, Complainant filed a second EEO complaint (“Complaint 2”), alleging discrimination on the basis of reprisal (current and prior EEO activity) when: 4. Between March 24, 2019 and April 8, 2019, Management reassigned him from Tour 2 to Tour 1. 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 and the AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency on April 14, 2020. The Agency issued its Final Order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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. 2 Agency Case No. 1B061004318 (Jun. 7, 2018)(EEOC Hearing Nos. 52020160071X & 520201600601X), and Agency Case No. 1B06100517 (Dec. 16, 2014) 2020004700 3 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. A claim of disparate treatment based on indirect evidence is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep’t. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the Agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether Complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Dep’t. of Transp., EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Dep’t. of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Dep’t. of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). Significantly, in the instant case, the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons all stem from operational needs. We have long held that it is not the function of this Commission to substitute its judgment for that of management officials who are familiar with the needs of their facility, and who are in a better position to make decisions, unless other facts suggest that proscribed considerations of bias entered into the decision-making process. See Shapiro v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996), citing Bauer at 1048. Likewise, an employer has the discretion to determine how best to manage its operations and may make decisions on any basis except a basis that is unlawful under the discrimination statutes. Furnco, supra; Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rayhall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181 (11th Cir. 1984). An employer is entitled to make its own business judgments. The reasonableness of the employer's decision may, of course, be probative of whether it is pretext. The trier of fact must understand that the focus is to be on the employer's motivation, not its business judgment. Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1012 n.6 (1st Cir. 1979). 2020004700 4 For claim 1, Complainant had to work the holiday because he was one of only two ETs with the necessary training on the equipment that was used that day. Complainant was not considered for the assignment in Claim 2 because it was not a competitive vacancy, but rather, a short-term project that. Moreover, the project occurred during a time the Agency had an operational need for Complainant to stay in his position, given that he was one of the most experienced ETs. The Agency also cited operational need, as well as Complainant’s job responsibilities with respect to Claims 3 and 4. The Agency provided evidence that Complainant’s bid assignment included working on Tour 1 as relief, along with evidence that dates Complainant was temporarily assigned to Tour 1 in Claims 3 and 4, corresponded with dates Tour 1 was short staffed and need relief. Complainant did not dispute the Agency’s statement of facts, and offers no additional argument or evidence on appeal, that would indicate the stated operational needs are pretext for reprisal. Complainant has not shown that the agency's action was unreasonable in terms of business judgment, and thus, without more, he is unable to meet his burden to show that the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for retaliation. CONCLUSION 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 2020004700 5 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. 2020004700 6 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 9, 2021 Date