[Redacted], Augustine P., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 13, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001767 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 13, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Augustine P.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Appeal No. 2022001767 Agency No. 1F-741-0054-22 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated January 24, 2022, dismissing his complaint alleging unlawful 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 a Maintenance Mechanic, PS-07, at the Agency’s Los Angeles Network Distribution Center in Bell, California. On December 30, 2021, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. The Agency, in its decision, framed the claim as follows: [Complainant] became aware through a declaration dated October 21, 2021, that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) failed to conduct a lawful investigation when it suppressed evidence by withholding a video surveillance tape of [him], 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. 2022001767 2 eliminated witnesses and failed to include a Threat Assessment Team investigation.2 On January 24, 2022 the Agency issued a final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the Agency reasoned that Complainant's complaint constituted a collateral attack on the OIG investigation process. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). In the present case, the crux of Complainant’s complaint is that he was harmed by actions taken during an OIG investigation. These actions included the OIG making purportedly false assertions and reaching incorrect conclusions, due to Agency and OIG officials withholding witness testimony, a video surveillance tape, and an investigation conducted by the Threat Assessment Team. On appeal, Complainant argues that the Agency “strategically carves out with surgical precision” named Agency officials. However, Complainant does not dispute that his complaint concerns actions taken, including by Agency officials, during an OIG investigation. He is clearly challenging the results of the OIG investigation, a matter outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. The proper forum for Complainant to have challenged the actions that occurred during the OIG investigation is with the OIG. See Hughes v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Request No. 05990698 (Nov. 4, 1999) (citing Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (Sept. 22, 1994); see also, Johnson v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05960699 (Apr. 16, 1998) (ruling that being the subject of an OIG investigation does not state a claim). 2 The Agency’s final decision describes that OIG officials withheld material evidence. However, a fair reading of the formal complaint reveals that Complainant alleges that Agency officials and OIG officials acted together in a “civil conspiracy” to “suppress” evidence. 2022001767 3 CONCLUSION Accordingly, we find the Agency properly dismissed the complaint and the decision is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. 2022001767 4 Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 June 13, 2022 Date