Meredith C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 11, 2018

0120182472 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 11, 2018)

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

Meredith C.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120182472

Agency No. 4K210003018

DECISION

On July 5, 2018, 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
June 26, 2018, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Sales, Services and
Distribution Associate at the Agency’s Union Bridge Post Office facility in Union Bridge,
Maryland.

On February 5, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), disability (15-pound
lifting restriction), and age (76) when:

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.
0120182472

2
1. On October 26 – 27, 2017, she was not paid for all hours worked; and

2. On or around October 27, 2017, she was told to resign or be fired and
Complainant resigned.

The pertinent record shows that the relevant period at issue was October 26 to October 27, 2017.
Complainant contended that she was not paid for four hours of work on both days. The record
included a Time and Attendance Collection System which showed that Complainant was paid for
the hours she worked on the two days at issue.

The named management official acknowledged that she criticized Complainant’s work on an
international transaction and told Complainant that she would have to do better. However, she
denied that she cursed at Complainant or suggested that she resign. The management official
offered Complainant an alternative position as a “Greeter,” to which Complainant responded
“Hell No!” Complainant then submitted her resignation.

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 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 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.

The instant appeal followed. Neither party submitted a brief on appeal.

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”).

Race, Sex and Age Discrimination

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.
0120182472

3
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 Dep’t of Community 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 a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993);
Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256.

For purposes of our analysis, we will assume that Complainant’s supervisor was aware of her
race, sex and age, and did berate her about her work performance. However, there was no
evidence that she was denied any pay or that the criticism was due to her protected bases. The
record included a Time and Attendance Collection System report which indicated that
Complainant earned 49.50 regular work hours for the second week of Pay Period 2017-22-2 and
that she was paid for those hours.

Moreover, we find the record shows that Complainant voluntarily resigned. In this case, the
named management official denied that she cursed at Complainant or told Complainant to resign
or be fired. The record shows that, after the official criticized Complainant’s work on an
international transaction, she offered Complainant an alternative position as “Greeter,” which
Complainant rejected. Thereafter, the record shows that Complainant voluntarily resigned. The
record includes Complainant’s handwritten note, which stated that wished to resign from her
position at the Union Bridge Post Office, effective October 27, 2017.

Disability Discrimination

The Rehabilitation Act Section 501, as amended, applies the standards in the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination by federal employees or applicants for
employment. The ADA says that an employer may not “discriminate against a qualified
individual with a disability.” Disability is defined as pertaining to an individual who has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities
“or is regarded as having such impairment; a record such an impairment or being regarded as
having such an impairment,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g). An individual may establish coverage under
any one or more of these. Employers are also required to provide reasonable accommodation for
qualified individuals with a known disability.

With regard to her disability claims, as a threshold matter, we consider whether Complainant was
disabled within the scope of the Rehabilitation Act. The Agency assumed that Complainant
established that she had a permanent medical condition that substantially limited a major life
activity. For purposes of our analysis, we assume, without finding, that Complainant met her
burden of showing that she is a qualified individual with a disability.

0120182472

4
There is no evidence, however, that she was treated differently than others who had no known
disability. We find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency discriminated against her
based on her medical condition when she was berated. In addition, there is no claim of a request
for, or a denial of, reasonable accommodation.

For these reasons, we find that Complainant did not establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s finding for the reasons stated herein.

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 tends 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.
0120182472

5
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 11, 2018
Date