Lenny W.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 29, 2020

2019005647 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 29, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lenny W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency. Appeal No. 2019005647 Agency No. 4V-412-0003-19 DECISION On July 25, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s January 27, 2019 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Postmaster in Key Largo, Florida. On January 22, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against him based on sex when, beginning on November 12, 2018, the Agency has denied his request to have a spare Long-Life Vehicle (LLV) relocated to his postal facility while granting the requests of other postal facilities for additional vehicles. The Agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation. The investigative record reflects that Complainant’s postal facility in Key Largo, Florida had 12 vehicles at its disposal to service 11 regular rural mail routes and 1 auxiliary route: 10 LLVs, 1 van and 1 spare LLV were 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2019005647 2 located at Complainant’s facility. In accordance with Agency policy, the 1 spare LLV at Complainant’s facility is to be used by other stations as well when their vehicles that break down. The record further indicates that if the spare LLV is not in use, the vehicle may be used to deliver mail from Complainant’s Key Largo facility. According to Complainant, his facility used the spare LLV to deliver mail on one of its regular routes while the van was used to deliver mail on its auxiliary route. Complainant further indicated that when the spare LLV was being used by another postal facility, the van was used for a regular mail route and the auxiliary route mail was delivered in a personal vehicle. Because the auxiliary route had grown, Complainant averred that mail could no longer be delivered via personal vehicle. Consequently, Complainant indicates that he was given permission by a neighboring Postmaster in Tavernier, Florida, to use its spare LLV to deliver mail. On November 12, 2018, following the observance of Veterans Day, a day well-known by Agency employees to have a heavy mail volume, a contractor working with the Tavernier post office contacted Complainant to pick up the spare LLV from Complainant’s facility for regular maintenance. According to Complainant, the loss of the Tavernier spare LLV on November 12, 2018, rendered mail delivery more difficult, thereby causing delivery delays. Complainant contends that the Agency’s decision to have the Tavernier spare LLV serviced on one of the busiest delivery days of the year was an intentional act of discrimination against him. Thereafter, however, Complainant asked his Manager, if the Tavernier vehicle could be permanently domiciled at his Key Largo postal facility as an additional spare LLV. Complainant further indicated that the Postmaster of the Tavernier post office supported his request. The record indicates that Complainant’s Manager denied Complainant’s request. Specifically, the Manager informed Complainant that his postal facility in Key Largo could not house two spare LLVs as it would limit the access for facilities further away from Key Largo to a spare vehicle when necessary. Complainant’s Manager also determined that because the Tavernier Postmaster did not indicate a specific need for the spare LLV, the vehicle would be transferred to Islamorada, Florida to assist stations further South when their vehicles needed repair. Following 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. This appeal followed. 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. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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 2019005647 3 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”). A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 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. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). Here, Complainant alleges that the Agency discriminatorily denied his request that an additional spare LLV be assigned to his postal facility in Key Largo, Florida. After a review of the record, and assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons not assigning an additional spare postal vehicle at Complainant’s Key Largo post office. Specifically, the responsible manager decided that Complainant’s facility in Key Largo could not house two spare LLVs as it would limit the access for other facilities further away from Key Largo to a spare vehicle when necessary. Complainant has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's articulated reasons for its conduct were a pretext designed to mask discrimination as alleged. There simply is no evidence to suggest that discriminatory factors played a role in the decision in question. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision, finding of no discrimination, for the reasons discussed above. 2019005647 4 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0617) 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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. 2019005647 5 RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations July 29, 2020 Date