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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 13, 2013

0120111866 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 13, 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. 0120111866

Agency No. 4K-200-0096-10

DECISION

On February 14, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s January 7, 2011, 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. 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 Mail Processing
Clerk at the Agency’s Government Mail-CS facility in Washington, D.C. In October 2009,
Complainant requested a temporary light duty assignment. At the time of Complainant’s
October 2009 request, Postmaster 1 was responsible for approving requests for light duty. In
April 2010, Complainant submitted another request for temporary light duty. At the time of
Complainant’s second request for light duty, Postmaster 2 was responsible for approving
requests for light duty.

Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated July 1, 2010, alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the basis of sex (female) when:

1. Complainant’s request for light duty was denied and on March 31, 2010, another
employee's request was approved without a light duty application packet.

2. On May 17, 2010, Complainant’s request for light duty was again denied.

0120111866

2
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 EEOC
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.

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. (November 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”).

We note that on appeal, Complainant does not challenge the definition of the issues accepted
for investigation.

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 Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has
articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 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, 134
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Dep’t of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans
Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).

With regard to issue (1), Complainant claimed that in October 2009, she mailed a light duty
packet to Postmaster 1, but received no reply. She noted that in November 2009, she hand-
delivered a copy of her light duty packet. Complainant stated that on February 24, 2010,
Person A from Postmaster 1’s office told her that Postmaster 1 was not permitting any light
duty packets to be distributed because of changes to certain instructions related to processing
light duty requests. However, Complainant claimed that Mail Processing Clerk X was given a
0120111866

3
light duty assignment in October 2009. Complainant also alleged that prior to March 31,
2010, Mail Processing Clerk Y was granted a light duty assignment. In addition, Complainant
claimed that Mail Processing Clerk Z was also given a light duty assignment in March 2010.

The record reveals that on October 23, 2009, Postmaster 1 denied Complainant’s request for
temporary light duty because it appeared that Complainant had permanent restrictions. With
regard to her contention that Mail Processing Clerk X was granted light duty, the record
reveals that Mail Processing Clerk X is not similarly situated to Complainant because he was
working in a limited duty assignment and not a light duty assignment. The Agency noted that
limited duty relates to an on-the-job injury and light duty relates to an off-the-job-injury. The
Agency noted Complainant requested a temporary light duty assignment and was not eligible
for a limited duty assignment. Additionally, we find that Mail Processing Clerk Y was in the
same protected group as Complainant.

With regard to issue (2), the record reveals that in April 2010, Complainant requested a
temporary light duty assignment beginning on May 7, 2010, for a period of 180 days.
Complainant’s physician indicated that Complainant’s medical restrictions were permanent.
On May 19, 2010, Postmaster 2 denied Complainant’s request. In his letter, Postmaster 2
noted that there was no work available within Complainant’s medical restrictions.

Complainant claimed that her request for light duty was denied, but on March 31, 2010, Clerk
Z’s request was approved without a light duty application packet. In her affidavit, the
Supervisor of Customer Service for Government Mail (Person B) stated that in February 2010,
Clerk Z submitted medical documentation stating that due to an off-the-job injury, he was
requesting light duty. Person B stated she was informed by Human Resources (HR) that at the
time the HR department was in the process of revising a new light duty request form. Person
B noted that the Manager of Customer Service for Government Mail (Person C) decided to
accommodate Clerk Z’s restrictions until the light duty form was available for him to submit
along with updated medical documentation for an official review. Person B noted that from
February – May 2010, Human Resources was still in the process of revising the light duty
request form and that during this time Clerk Z continued to submit medical documentation
stating that his medical restrictions had not changed and that he still needed to be on light duty.
Person B stated that prior to May 17, 2010, Clerk Z received the requested light duty form and
then submitted his official request for light duty.

The record contains a copy of Clerk Z’s request for temporary light duty signed May 26,
2010. On May 28, 2010, Postmaster 2 denied Person Z’s request. In his letter, Postmaster 2
noted there was no work available within Person Z’s medical restrictions.

Although Clerk Z’s light duty request was initially denied, the record indicates that Clerk Z
was later given a light duty assignment. In her affidavit, Person C stated that after additional
medical documentation was submitted Clerk Z was granted a light duty assignment. Person B
explained that Postmaster 2 granted Clerk Z a light duty assignment based on work being
available within his restrictions. Complainant does not contend that she submitted additional
0120111866

4
medical documentation following the initial denial of light duty by Postmaster 2, as was done
by Clerk Z. Moreover, the record reveals that Complainant’s physician indicated that
Complainant’s medical restrictions were permanent, unlike the restrictions of Person Z.

In the present case, we find the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
its actions. Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that the Agency’s
actions were a pretext for prohibited discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision 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.
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).
0120111866

5
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

February 13, 2013
Date