Brendan W.,1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 16, 2020

2020000211 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 16, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Brendan W.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020000211 Agency No. 1G-701-0079-18 DECISION On September 5, 2019, 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 9, 2019, final decision 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. 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 an Electronic Technician, PS-10/P, at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. On September 23, 2018, around 11:00 a.m., Complainant asked his immediate Supervisor, Maintenance Operations (S1), if he could leave for the remainder of the day to watch a football game. S1 denied his leave request because his services were needed. Around 12:30 p.m., S1 discovered one of Complainant’s assigned machines, DBCS No. 5, was experiencing functional difficulties and they discussed possible corrections on the machine. 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. 2020000211 2 S1 assigned several employees to assist Complainant in getting the machine operational by their end tour at 3:00 p.m. Around 2:30 p.m., S1 informed Complainant he would need to work overtime until the machine was functional. The four employees S1 assigned to assist Complainant had completed their assigned tasks on the machine before 3:00 p.m. S1 determined only Complainant was needed to finish running a test deck and finalize the repair. The machine was operational by 3:08 p.m., which is when S1 released Complainant from overtime and sent him home. Complainant believed that S1 discriminated against him because she required him, the only white employee working on machine DBCS No. 5, to stay and work overtime. On February 6, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian), and sex (male), when on September 23, 2018, Complainant was forced to work overtime, and his request for annual leave was denied.2 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant failed to request either a hearing or a final agency decision (FAD), the Agency issued a FAD pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the FAD, the Agency determined that even if Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, management articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its actions. S1 explained that she required Complainant to work overtime because it was his responsibility to troubleshoot his assigned machines, complete any necessary repairs, and have machine DBCS No. 5 ready for mail processing. Since Complainant only needed to run the test desk, which did not require the assistance of the other employees, S1 released the other employees. S1 released Complainant once machine DBCS No. 5 was operational, eight minutes after his coworkers. Regarding the denial of annual leave, S1 testified that she initially denied annual leave because they were short-staffed and there were repairs and work that needed coverage. The Agency concluded Complainant failed to show management’s legitimate explanations were pretextual. As a result, the Agency found that Complainant had not been discriminated against as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 2 The Agency dismissed an additional claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(1). Complainant raised no challenges to the dismissal of this claim on appeal; therefore, it will not be addressed herein. 2020000211 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Disparate Treatment To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Tx. Dep’t of Cmty Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Hon. Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993). In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of sex and race discrimination, the Commission finds that Complainant failed to present evidence to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as detailed above. The record reveals that ultimately, the responsibility for getting the machine functional and processing mail fell on Complainant as he was assigned to troubleshoot DBCS No. 5. S1 explained there was no need for the supporting employees to incur associated overtime costs when the final task could be performed by Complainant alone. ROI, at 72, 74, 81-82. Additionally, S1 testified she denied Complainant’s annual leave request because the office was short-staffed and there were repairs and assignments that she needed Complainant to complete. Id. at 84. The Commission finds no persuasive evidence that Complainant's protected classes were a factor in any of the Agency’s actions. At all times, the ultimate burden remains with Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s reasons were not the real reasons and that the Agency acted on the basis of discriminatory animus. Complainant failed to carry this burden. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred. 2020000211 4 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0620) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the 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, 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. 2020000211 5 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 November 16, 2020 Date