Martin S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 18, 2018

0120172235 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 18, 2018)

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

Martin S.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172235

Agency No. 1G321000117

DECISION

On June 15, 2017, 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
May 17, 2017, final decision 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.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Electronics
Technician, PS-10, at the Agency’s Tallahassee Processing and Distribution Center facility in
Tallahassee, Florida.

On November 21, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian) and color (White) when, on or about
September 21, 2016, he was not reimbursed for travel expenses for an off-site training course.
The complaint alleges that the Agency management has paid travel vouchers for African-
American employees with brown skin and is discriminating against him because he is Caucasian
with white skin.

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.
0120172235

2

The Agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation which produced the
following pertinent evidence.

Complainant attended a training course at the National Center for Employee Development
(NCED) that required him to travel from Tallahassee, Florida to Norman, Oklahoma. The course
was held from September 12, 2016 to September 16, 2016. Complainant did not arrive at the
NCED until September 13, 2016. His connecting flight to Charlotte was delayed and he missed
the connecting flight to Oklahoma City. The flight was delayed due to security issues that
occurred at the Charlotte airport during the flight. The next available flight was at 9 a.m. the
following morning. Complainant stayed in a hotel due to the delay.

The NCED operational notes provide that participants were required to make shuttle reservations
for transportation from the Oklahoma City airport before 9:00 a.m. the day prior to arrival. Those
who encounter flight delays must return home if the course is one week or less and they will not
arrive by the begin time of class. Every student experiencing a delay was required to call a
specific telephone number to report the situation, notify the home office, and coordinate lodging
arrangements and travel plan changes with the home office.

Complainant joined the training class on September 13, 2016 and returned home.

Complainant incurred transportation expenses on September 12, 2016 for travel from his home to
the Tallahassee airport; on September 13, 2016 for travel from the Oklahoma City airport to the
NCED lodging; on September 17, 2016 for travel from the NCED lodging to the Oklahoma City
airport; and on September 17, 2016 for travel from the Tallahassee airport to his residence. He
incurred an expense on September 12, 2016 for a hotel room as a result of delayed travel.

Complainant submitted a travel voucher on September 20, 2016. On or about September 21,
2016, Complainant became aware that the Agency’s management had not approved and
processed his travel voucher. The manager responsible for approving travel vouchers, the plant
manager, returned Complainant’s voucher and indicated more information was needed regarding
Complainant’s transportation and hotel/lodging expenses, including receipts.

The plant manager indicated that she returned Complainant’s voucher to make him aware there
was a problem, as it was not complete and/or needed additional information. After Complainant
resubmitted the voucher on September 26, 2016, the computer generated an error message
indicating a policy violation. Complainant was made aware of the issue and given a copy of the
screen shot. The error message indicates the hotel expense was not from a company credit card
and is set to pay the employee, a possible policy violation. The plant manager indicated that
Complainant had yet to submit the required information.

0120172235

3
The comments from the plant manager in the computerized travel expense system indicate
Complainant had used Uber when traveling from his residence to the Tallahassee airport and she
needed an explanation as to how the cost was calculated and a receipt. She needed an
explanation for the stay at the hotel and the receipt for the NCED shuttle.

The Agency’s policy regarding claiming transportation expenses provides that a receipt is
required for any taxi fare that exceeds $50 plus 20 percent tip. The Agency’s policy does not
clearly address use of app-based services, such as Uber.

The manager of maintenance operations support (MOS) indicated that Complainant’s request
was not approved because Complainant did not explain his use of his personal credit card instead
of a government travel card to pay for his hotel room. She discussed this problem with
Complainant and, to her knowledge, Complainant has not input the requested explanation. She
did not pre-approve Complainant’s additional hotel stay but, on September 12, 2016, she
authorized the use of a hotel room because Complainant had missed his connecting flight.

Comments entered by Complainant in the computerized travel expense system indicates that his
travel was delayed, the hotel stay was approved in advance and management was aware of the
details. The flight delay was caused by missing connecting flight to Oklahoma City, OK from
Charlotte, NC. The hotel expense was preapproved by management. It was placed on a personal
credit card because Complainant does not have a government credit card.

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 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). The decision concluded
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant submits another employee’s (African-American) travel voucher that
was approved on August 25, 2016, receipts for the airport shuttle to and from NCED to the
Oklahoma City airport, and the expense report comment history. Complainant asserts that he did
not take a taxi to and from NCED to the Oklahoma City airport; he took the NCED airport
shuttle. He also explains that the NCED administrator made the decision that he would not return
home and the MOS manager was informed of these details. All necessary comments were
provided explaining that the hotel expense was due to a travel delay. The plant manager did not
provide Complainant a screen shot of error messages and information on how to correct the
problem.

The Agency has not submitted a brief or statement in response.

0120172235

4

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 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”).

Complainant alleged that the Agency treated him disparately in failing to timely process and
approve his travel voucher. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part
analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For a
complainant to prevail, he 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 Constr. 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 Tex.
Dep’t of Cmty. 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 Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

Even if we assume that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, his claim
ultimately fails, as we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
its actions. The Agency’s management explained that Complainant failed to adequately address
the deficiencies in his travel reimbursement request. Complainant’s travel to the NCED
contained several unusual situations that warranted explanation, considering the Agency’s
policies. First, Complainant’s travel was delayed. The Agency’s policy indicates that, when a
student encounters flight delays, their course is one week or less, and they will not arrive by the
beginning of class, they must return home. While Complainant’s participation in the training,
despite his delay, was approved, this was an unexpected situation and the record does not clearly
establish the details of this delay and approval were entered into the record prior to the instant
appeal. Second, Complainant required an unexpected hotel stay, which, although approved by
management, required sufficient explanation and documentation. Third, Complainant paid for his
hotel stay with a personal credit card, rather than a government credit card, which caused an alert
in the system, as this is a potential policy violation. While Complainant explained this in the
comments relating to his travel voucher, it was nevertheless an irregularity that needed to be
sufficiently explained and supported. Fourth, Complainant did not include all the requisite
receipts with his initial submission.
0120172235

5
Fifth, Complainant used a ride-sharing service, rather than a taxi, for transportation from his
residence to the airport, which is not clearly addressed in the Agency’s travel policies. Although
Complainant submitted comments and supplied documentation over time, management is
ultimately responsible for ensuring that all policies are followed and any unusual or potentially
errant transactions are sufficiently supported. We find that it is reasonable to expect that such a
situation may warrant greater scrutiny than a situation that does not involve such unexpected
circumstances. We note that the other employee’s (African-American) approved travel expense
report that Complainant has submitted indicates payments made with a government credit card
and use of a taxi to the airport from his residence and a shuttle to and from the Agency’s training
facility; it does not include an additional hotel stay related to a travel delay, nor does it indicate
the use of Uber. Therefore, we find that Complainant has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons articulated by the Agency were a
pretext for unlawful discrimination or motivated by some unlawful discriminatory animus.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.

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.
0120172235

6
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.
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

December 18, 2018
Date