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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 9, 2013

0120120880 (E.E.O.C. May. 9, 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
(Western Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120120880

Agency No. 4E-990-0045-09

DECISION

On November 18, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s October 19, 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 Rural Carrier at
the Agency’s Caldwell Post Office located in Caldwell, Idaho.

Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated November 30, 2009, alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the basis of religion (Muslim) when: on September 18, 2009,
Complainant was not permitted to have a potluck on the workroom floor for a Muslim holiday.

On December 28, 2009, the Agency issued a decision dismissing Complainant’s complaint
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. Complainant appealed the
Agency’s dismissal to the Commission. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120101369 (May 26, 2011),
the Commission vacated the Agency’s decision and remanded the complaint for further
processing.

At the conclusion of the investigation on the remanded claim, 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
0120120880

2
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”).

Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis first
enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v.
Worcester Found, for Experimental Biology. Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd,
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For Complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse
employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Fumco Constr. Corp. v. Waters,
438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).

Once a complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of production then shifts to
the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of
Com. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the Agency is successful, the burden
reverts back to Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Agency's reason(s) for its action was a pretext for discrimination. At all times, Complainant
retains the burden of persuasion, and it is his obligation to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993); U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S.
711, 715-16 (1983).

Complainant stated that she requested to have a potluck celebrating Bajram, a Muslim holiday.
Complainant claimed that the Postmaster at the time (Person A) discriminated against her
because of her religion when she was told she could only have a potluck in the basement with
her friends. Complainant stated that normally potlucks were held on the main floor with all
employees. Complainant stated when she was told she could have the potluck in the basement,
she elected not to have a potluck.

In the present case, the Agency has articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
actions. Person A, the Acting Postmaster at the time, stated that Complainant asked her to
celebrate a Bosnian holiday with a potluck, and she approved the request as long as it did not
0120120880

3
disrupt work performance. Person A noted she also referred Complainant to a clerk who
would help take care of setting a table and other preparations for the potluck. However,
Person A stated that other employees verbally complained about Complainant's aggressive
behavior and her insistence that they participate in the potluck. Person A averred that once
other employees felt “bullied” to participate without regard to their interests, she suggested
that Complainant hold the potluck in the break room instead of the work room floor in order to
include those employees who wanted to participate. The record reveals the break room was
located in the basement. Person A stated that other smaller celebrations had been held in the
break room, such as birthday celebrations and potlucks where everyone did not want to
participate.

In the present case, we find the Agency articulate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its
actions. Upon review, we find Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of evidence
that the Agency’s actions were based on discriminatory animus. Moreover, we note this is not
a case where Complainant claimed failure to accommodate her religious practices or beliefs.

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.
0120120880

4
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:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

May 9, 2013
Date