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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 19, 2015

0120131345 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 19, 2015)

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. 0120131345

Hearing No. 531-2013-00182X

Agency No. 4K-200-0075-12

DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant’s appeal1

from the
Agency’s September 30, 2013 final order 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. and Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. The
Commission’s review is de novo. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
final order.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Transitional City
Carrier at the Agency’s Post Office in Temple Hills, Maryland. On April 25, 2012,
Complainant requested to take part-day annual leave that day and annual leave the next day.
Complainant noted on the leave slip that the request was “Pending Family Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) Paperwork.” Complainant did not have FMLA documentation on record with the

1 Complainant timely requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge; however, the
Agency erroneously issued a final Agency decision on January 17, 2013. Complainant filed an
appeal from that decision on January 31, 2013. The complaint was subsequently properly
adjudicated by an Administrative Judge, and the Agency issued a final order fully
implementing the Administrative Judge’s decision. Complainant did not file an appeal
regarding the final order. Nonetheless, the Commission will consider Complainant’s earlier
appeal in this decision as an appeal of the September 30, 2013 final order.
0120131345

2
Agency at that time. The FMLA requests were entered into the system, and the Personnel
Processing Specialist sent Complainant FMLA paperwork for her completion and submission
on April 25, 2012. Complainant’s leave requests, however, were denied. Complainant did not
submit the requested FMLA medical documentation until June 7, 2012.

On April 30, 2012, Complainant was required to call the office at 6:00 a.m. to find out if she
was needed for work. Complainant failed to do so at that time, and instead called in between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Complainant reported to work, but later returned to the office with
undelivered mail. Complainant’s supervisor (S1) called her into the office to conduct a pre-
disciplinary interview for her failure to follow instructions to call the office at 6:00 a.m.
Complainant claimed that the situation was stressful and told S1 that she was going home. As
a result, S1 charged Complainant with Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) for three
hours for walking off the job without approved leave.

On April 28, 2012, Complainant submitted a leave request for May 1, 2012, with the reason as
“Pending FMLA paperwork.” The request was neither approved nor denied, but was signed
by a supervisor. On May 4, 2012, Complainant submitted a leave request for that day and
May 5, 2012, and included a doctor’s note in support. Complainant’s supervisor (S2)
informed Complainant that the medical documentation was insufficient as it merely stated that
she saw a doctor. In addition, Complainant claims that S1 told her to get some rest and failed
to schedule her for work again through May 15, 2012.

On May 8, 2012, S1 held a pre-disciplinary interview with Complainant concerning the
undelivered mail on April 30, 2012. Complainant became angry during the meeting, and S2
called the Postal Police. Complainant voluntarily left the office and did not return. On May
13, 2012, Complainant called the Postmaster, and he told her that her contract would not be
renewed because of her conduct and bringing back undelivered mail. In addition, Complainant
had several confrontations with co-workers and supervisors. On May 17, 2012, Complainant
was notified by certified mail that her contract was not being renewed.

On June 1, 2012 (and amended on August 12, 2012), Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity when:

1. Since on or about April 25, 2012, and various dates, her request for FMLA
designation was denied;

2. On April 30, 2012, she was charged AWOL;

3. On May 4, 2012, her supervisor requested her medical diagnosis and when given,
she was told to "rest up" and not scheduled to work May 8 through May 15, 2012;
and

4. On May 15, 2012, she was notified that she was not being rehired.
0120131345

3
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation (ROI) and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing, but the AJ assigned to the
case granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency and issued a decision on September
12, 2013.

In his decision, the AJ determined that Complainant is an individual with a disability and
established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and reprisal. Nonetheless, the AJ
found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Specifically, as to claim (1), the AJ noted that Complainant’s supervisors had no control over
the administration of FMLA benefits. Even so, Complainant's FMLA request never had the
chance to be denied because Complainant failed to submit the proper paperwork in order to
receive full consideration. With respect to claim (2), Complainant was charged with AWOL
after returning with three hours of undelivered mail and left work without preapproved leave.
Regarding claim (3), the AJ found that Complainant's allegations that her supervisors’ request
for her diagnosis was for discriminatory purposes was unsupported because management is
permitted, as stated in the Family and Medical Leave Act handbook, to require a
"certification" of the serious health condition of the employee. Both supervisors denied telling
Complainant to “rest up.” Finally, as to claim (4), Complainant's contract was not renewed
because of her conduct: leaving the office on April 30, 2012, returning to the office with
undelivered mail on April 30, 2012, and creating a hostile work environment on May 8, 2012,
when she engaged in a heated argument with her supervisors.

The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions
were pretextual. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant had not been subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
In her appeal, Complainant contends that she was always able to perform her job duties as
described. Complainant argues that she was eligible for FMLA and her doctor’s note should
have been sufficient. Additionally, Complainant alleges that Agency officials were not truthful
during the investigation and lied to cover up their actions. Complainant contends that she has
shown that the Agency’s reasons for its actions are impossible, inconsistent, and contradictory.
Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the final order.

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.
0120131345

4
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 she 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 pretextual. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

,
509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that the AJ properly issued summary judgment as the
material facts are undisputed. The Commission agrees with the AJ that assuming arguendo
that she established a prima facie case of discrimination and reprisal, Complainant failed to
present evidence to rebut the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
In particular, as to claim (1), S1 and S2 affirmed that they did not deny Complainant’s FMLA
requests; rather, they only input her requests for FMLA into the Agency’s Enterprise Resource
Management System (eRMS). ROI, at 183. S2 noted that the eRMS system determined
FMLA eligibility, not management. Id

. at 149. As the AJ noted in his opinion, Complainant
was sent FMLA documentation to complete; however, there is no evidence she submitted the
required documentation prior to her contract not being renewed.
With respect to claim (2), S2 confirmed that Complainant was charged with AWOL on April
30, 2012, after she returned to the office with undelivered mail and left the office without
approved leave. ROI, at 151. Regarding claim (3), S2 stated that she held a pre-disciplinary
interview with Complainant regarding her bringing back undelivered mail on April 30, 2012.
Id. at 152. During the interview, Complainant initiated a heated verbal exchange with S2, and
S2 called the Postal Police. Id. S2 maintained that Complainant left the office voluntarily on
her own, and did not return until May 13, 2012. Id. S2 denied requesting information about
Complainant’s “medical diagnosis” or telling her to “rest up.” Id. Finally, the Postmaster
affirmed that Complainant was not rehired based on her conduct with co-workers and
management and her performance, including bringing back undelivered mail. Id

. at 111, 228.
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, the Commission finds no
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 or retaliatory animus. Complainant failed to carry this burden. As
a result, the Commission finds that Complainant has not established that she was subjected to
discrimination or reprisal as alleged.
0120131345

5

CONCLUSION
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted
on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM
the Agency's final order, because the Administrative Judge’s issuance of summary judgment
was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that
discrimination or reprisal occurred.

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).
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.
0120131345

6
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
March 19, 2015