Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 15, 2015

01-2015-1019-0500 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 15, 2015)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120151019

Agency No. 4K-300-0125-14

DECISION
On January 17, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s December 15, 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

. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts
it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Laborer Custodial
at the Agency’s Norcross Main Post Office facility in Norcross, Georgia. On June 24, 2014,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her by
subjecting her to a hostile work environment on the basis of reprisal for her prior protected
EEO activity when on March 19, 2014, management issued her a Notice of Removal (NOR).

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. Complainant makes no
arguments on appeal.

0120151019

2

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Nov. 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard
of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and
legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents,
statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the
parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, 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 she was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction 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 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community 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 pretextual. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc

., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
Here, assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal, the
Agency nonetheless articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Specifically, the record shows that on February 27, 2014, Complainant’s supervisor (S1)
instructed her to transport mail to another facility, a task she had performed on previous
occasions. Complainant refused to follow S1’s directions and stated that she believed the task
was outside the scope of her job duties. S1 states that Complainant became very loud and rude
when she refused to follow instructions and caused a disruption on the workroom floor. The
Postmaster (PM) of Complainant’s facility states that she witnessed the incident and that
Complainant “continuously exhibited combative behavior” and that she yelled at S1. The
record also reflects that both S1 and one of Complainant’s co-workers stated that following this
incident, they heard Complainant threaten the PM, saying “I will bury her.”

Following this incident, management held an investigative interview with Complainant on
March 3, 2014, and subsequently issued her a NOR, dated March 19, 2014, for improper
conduct and failure to follow instructions. The NOR stated that Complainant’s “explanations
for [her] behavior” were unacceptable and that her behavior on February 27, 2014, “was
highly improper and in violation of postal policy.” Further, the Agency states that the NOR
was appropriate and commensurate with the progressive discipline policy as Complainant had
previously been issued a 14-day suspension and a letter of warning. We find that Complainant
0120151019

3
has not shown that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful
reprisal discrimination.

Finally, insofar as Complainant is alleging that the claim addressed above constitutes
harassment, the Commission finds that since she failed to refute the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the Agency for its actions, she necessarily also failed
to establish that such actions were taken on the basis of her prior protected activity.
Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to a discriminatory hostile
work environment. See Bennett v. Department of the Navy

, EEOC Request No. 05980746
(September 19, 2000).

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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).
0120151019

4
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

(Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an
attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or
denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney
with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and
the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to
File a Civil Action”).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

Date
July 15, 2015