Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 4, 2013

0120113531 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 4, 2013)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120113531

Hearing No. 430-2011-00084X

Agency No. 4K-230-0013-09

DECISION

On July 21, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s June 24, 2011 final order
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.; Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq.; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The Commission deems the appeal timely and
accepts it for de novo review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the
Agency’s Montrose Heights Station in Richmond, Virginia. On February 13, 2009,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the
bases of race (Caucasian), color (White), disability, age (53), and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when:

1. his reporting times were changed;
2 management refused to pay him for sick leave for October 17, 18, & 28, 2008;
and
3. management permitted a Temporary Employee to case his route.

0120113531

2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the
case determined sua sponte that the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a decision
on June 10, 2011. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. From
that order, Complainant brings the instant appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court
determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case,
there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh
the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249.
The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all
justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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. Here, because Complainant has failed to adduce evidence to refute
the Agency’s explanation for its actions, summary judgment was appropriate.

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). He must generally 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. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The
prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency has 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). 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).

Claim #1 (Reporting Times Changed)

The Agency explained that Complainant’s report time was changed from 8:30 to 9:00 because
he was unable to sort the mail for his route in the allotted time which resulted in a delay in
Complainant beginning to deliver his route. This in turn prevented Complainant from
delivering his entire route within the assigned schedule and required that another carrier
complete the route on overtime. After changing Complainant’s report time to 9:00, the
Agency was able to assign a co-worker to sort Complainant’s route on straight time thereby
0120113531

3
avoiding the necessity of paying overtime. Report of Investigation, (ROI) Affidavit B at 3.
This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has
adduced no evidence to contradict the Agency’s explanation.

Claim #2 (Sick Leave Denied)

Complainant contends that he was improperly denied sick leave on October 17, 18 and 28,
2008. The Agency explains that Complainant was initially denied sick leave pay for those days
because the medical documentation he provided to support his claim was inadequate. The
documentation he provided consisted of handwritten notes from his wife which did not satisfy
Agency documentation requirements. When ultimately Complainant provided adequate
documentation, he was allowed sick leave for the days in question. ROI, Affidavit B at 4-5.
This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant does not
dispute the Agency’s explanation.

Claim #3 (Route Cased by Co-worker)

As the Agency explained in connection with Claim #1, above, Complainant’s co-workers were
sometimes assigned to sort the mail for his route because he was unable to case the mail in the
time allotted. By doing this the Agency was able to avoid paying overtime. ROI, Affidavit B
at 5. This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action. Complainant has
adduced no evidence to contradict the Agency’s explanation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Agency’s final order is AFFIRMED.

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.
0120113531

4
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).
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:

______________________________ September 4, 2013
Carlton M. Hadden, Director Date
Office of Federal Operations