Chantelle M.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 9, 2017

0120150176 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 9, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Chantelle M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120150176

Agency No. 4B-070-0046-14

DECISION

On October 18, 2014, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a),
from the Agency’s September 18, 2014, 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. Our review is
de novo. 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 Postmaster at the
Agency’s Post Office in Hillsborough, New Jersey.

On March 26, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the
Agency discriminated against her on the bases of her race (African-American), color (Black),
and disability (unspecified) 2 when:

1. On December 12, 2013, Complainant was placed in Emergency Placement Status
without written notification; and

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.

2 Complainant subsequently decided not to pursue a claim of disability discrimination.
0120150176

2

2. On an unspecified date, Complainant was denied 650 mediation.

The Agency accepted claim (1) for investigation. Claim (2) was dismissed pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds of failure to state a claim. The Agency stated that the
claim constituted a collateral attack on the “650 appeal” process.

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 pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).

The Agency determined that Complainant failed to prove that it subjected her to discrimination
as alleged. The Agency stated that Complainant explained that on December 10, 2013, the
Somerset Postmaster and the North Bergen Postmaster visited her office and asked about the
amount of parcels that were on the platform. The Agency noted that Complainant responded
that her workforce was processing the parcels as quickly as possible. Complainant stated that
she was informed that some of the parcels were delayed. According to Complainant, it was
subsequently determined that the employees were working the parcels out of order, rather than
first in, first out. Complainant stated that the visiting Postmasters then contacted other offices
for assistance in working the packages. Complainant asserted that she issued the supervisor
working for her a letter of warning and also removed the supervisor from the day shift.

The Agency noted that Complainant stated she was not provided a reason for being put on
emergency placement. According to Complainant, the North Bergen Postmaster walked her
out of the building and informed her that she needed to make herself available the next day.
Complainant stated that the next day the North Bergen Postmaster told her not to come in to
work. Complainant maintained that she was initially placed on emergency placement for two
weeks and that afterwards she took sick leave. Complainant acknowledged that she was paid
for the time she was in an emergency leave status. The Agency stated that from December 13,
2013, through December 26, 2013, Complainant received eight hours of “other paid leave”
each day. Complainant was on sick leave from December 27, 2013 through January 3, 2014,
and returned to work on January 6, 2014.

The Agency determined that Complainant failed to set forth a prima facie case of race or color
discrimination. The Agency reasoned that there was no evidence that Complainant suffered an
adverse action resulting in a personal loss to a term, condition, or privilege of her
employment. According to the Agency, Complainant was not put on emergency placement but
rather she was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, and was paid for the
time she was off from work. The Agency further determined that Complainant failed to
identify similarly situated individuals outside her protected classes who received more
favorable treatment.

0120150176

3
The Agency noted that Complainant identified two Caucasian, white comparators who she
claimed received more favorable treatment. Complainant maintained that one comparator
delayed mail and deleted clock rings and was only removed from his office for one or two
days. With regard to the other comparator, Complainant stated that he had 625 feet of delayed
mail while serving as an Officer-in-Charge and was not put on emergency placement.
According to the Somerset Postmaster, he placed the first comparator on emergency placement
but it was later changed to administrative leave. The Somerset Postmaster asserted that this
action was taken due to failure to report an accident and allegedly covering up the accident.
The Somerset Postmaster denied that the comparator delayed mail, acknowledged an employee
accused the comparator of deleting clock rings, but stated this charge was not proven. As for
the second comparator, the Agency stated that this employee was not similarly situated to
Complainant because he did not report to the same supervisor.

Complainant identified four black employees who she claimed were all put on emergency
placement. The Agency stated that two of these comparators were not similarly situated to
Complainant because their situations were addressed by different management officials. The
Somerset Postmaster stated that one of the other comparators was placed on administrative
leave by another managerial official pending an investigation for delaying mail. The Somerset
Postmaster asserted that he placed the remaining comparator on emergency placement status,
which was later changed to administrative leave for delaying parcel deliveries.

Assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of race or color
discrimination, the Agency then determined that it articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
explanation for its actions. The North Bergen Postmaster, who was serving as the Acting
Manager, Post Office Operations, stated that she placed Complainant on administrative leave
rather than an emergency placement status. According to the North Bergen Postmaster, she
spoke to Complainant about the delayed mail and gave her an investigative interview prior to
placing her on administrative leave. The North Bergen Postmaster stated that there was
delayed mail in the building that had not been reported to her office or entered into the
Customer Services Daily Reporting System, and standard operating procedures for delayed
mail had not been followed. The North Bergen Postmaster explained that she did not issue
Complainant written notice regarding being placed on administrative leave but that she
provided Complainant with a verbal explanation that she was being placed on administrative
leave pending an investigation. The North Bergen Postmaster stated that she did not recall
whether on December 10, 2013, the entire district was instructed to delay mail due to an
impending storm, but that she acknowledged that if such a directive was issued, it could have
contributed to some of the delayed mail.

The Agency stated that Complainant attempted to establish that its reasons were pretext by
referencing the aforementioned comparators outside of her protected groups who she claimed
were found to have delayed mail or did not report delayed mail and were treated differently
than her. The Agency rejected this argument, stating that the comparators were not similarly
situated or did not receive more favorable treatment. The Agency determined that
Complainant offered no evidence to refute the explanation that she was placed on
0120150176

4
administrative leave pending an investigation due to delayed mail being discovered in her
office that was not reported to the Acting Manager, Post Office Operations or entered into the
Customer Services Daily Reporting System. Thereafter, Complainant filed the instant appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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). She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. 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 prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No.
05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). 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 Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v.
Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256
(1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No, 05950351 (Dec. 14,
1995).

Initially, we note that on appeal Complainant has not challenged the dismissal of claim (2).
Therefore, we shall not address that claim further herein. With regard to claim (1), we shall
assume arguendo that Complainant set forth a prima facie case of race and color
discrimination. The Agency explained that Complainant was placed on administrative leave
based on there being delayed mail discovered in her facility that was not reported to the Acting
Manager, Post Office Operations or entered into the Customer Services Daily Reporting
System. We find that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
action it took against Complainant.

Complainant argues that the Agency’s explanation is pretext intended to mask discriminatory
motivation, as evidenced by the treatment afforded other Postmasters. Complainant cited two
Caucasian, white Postmasters who allegedly received more favorable treatment but the record
reveals that one of the comparators, unlike Complainant, was not accused of delaying mail,
and the other comparator did not report to the same supervisor as Complainant. We find that
Complainant has not established that similarly situated employees outside of her protected
groups were afforded more favorable treatment. Complainant also contends that a directive
was issued to delay the mail in the district, in order to allow carriers to return before the
impending storm. We observe that neither the North Bergen Postmaster nor the Somerset
Postmaster could remember whether a directive was issued on the day in question. As
Complainant chose not to request a hearing, the Commission does not have the benefit of an
0120150176

5
Administrative Judge's credibility determinations after a hearing. Therefore, the Commission
can only evaluate the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented. Absent any further
evidence on this point, we find that this contention is not sufficient to establish that the action
taken against Complainant was based on her race or color. Upon review of the record, we find
that Complainant has not established that the Agency’s explanation for the action taken against
her was pretext intended to hide discriminatory motivation.

CONCLUSION

The Agency’s determination that no discrimination occurred is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant
or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. 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). All requests and arguments
must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In
the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is
received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other
party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your 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).
0120150176

6

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

March 9, 2017
Date