[Redacted], Frederick A., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 4, 2022

Appeal No. 2021003493 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Frederick A.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003493 Agency No. 4K-270-0141-20 DECISION On May 20, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 23, 2021 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., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s North Point Station in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. On September 24, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discriminatory harassment based on disability, age (age: 56), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On June 15, 2020, he was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI) in an unprofessional manner regarding unauthorized overtime. 2. On June 23, 3030, his manager yelled at 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. 2021003493 2 3. On July 1, 2020, he was not allowed to correct line-of-travel errors on the new route.2 4. On August 10, 2020, he was not provided with a reasonable accommodation per his medical restrictions. After the investigation of the formal complaint, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of the investigation and with a notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence. Complainant did not respond. In its April 23, 2021 final decision, the Agency found no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established based on the evidence developed during the investigation. The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not submit a brief on appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Reasonable Accommodation: Claim 4 Under the Commission’s regulations, an agency is required to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability unless the agency can show that accommodation would cause an undue hardship. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9. Here, Complainant stated that he was first diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on May 13, 2004. We will assume without deciding that Complainant is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Complainant alleged that on August 10, 2020, he was not provided with a reasonable accommodation per his medical restrictions. Specifically, Complainant stated that he his request to deliver mail on his route first to Rosebud Lane due to an aggressive customer he encountered daily who frequently accused him of making mis-deliveries. S1 indicated that he was unaware of any work limitation Complainant had, and that he received no medical documentation “in reference to the complainant at any time.” (Report of Investigation, p. 732). Complainant has not explained, either during the investigation or on appeal, how his request was related to, or could have accommodated, his disability. He also provided no proof that he presented Agency management with any medical documentation in support of his request. In sum, based on the available evidence, we nothing in the record reflecting that Complainant had been denied a requested reasonable accommodation. Harassment: Claims 1 - 3 2 Line-of-travel is an Agency term relating to a type of sequencing process for mail delivery. 2021003493 3 To prove his hostile work environment harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of his protected bases - in this case, his disability, age and prior protected activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. Regarding claim 1, Complainant alleged that on June 15, 2020, he was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI) in an unprofessional manner regarding unauthorized overtime. manner. Specifically, Complainant alleged that during the interview, even though he was using a calm, non-aggressive voice, the Supervisor, Customer Services, who was Complainant’s supervisor (“S1”) kept interpreting him and telling him to “calm down.” S1, on the other hand, stated that Complainant was yelling and screaming during the interview. S1 said the PDI was scheduled to discuss Complainant taking more than eight hours to deliver his route. Beyond his own bare assertions, Complainant provided no other evidence that S1 dealt with him in an offensive unprofessional manner on this occasion. Regarding claim 2, Complainant claimed that on June 23, 2020, his manager yelled at him. The Manager, Customer Services (“the Manager”) asserted that he instructed all carriers to leave the building, “but I did so without yelling and never singled out one carrier.” Regarding claim 3, Complainant alleged that on July 1, 2020, he was not allowed to correct line- of-travel errors on the new route. The Manager explained that Complainant was instructed to fix his line-of-travel, but he did not complete the assignment in the time that was given to him, and this work had to be done by another carrier. Moreover, the Manager stated that he allowed Complainant to make changes that were in line with safety regarding his travel to and from the route. Here, Complainant simply has provided inadequate evidence to support his claim that his treatment was the result of his disability, age and prior protected activity. A case of unlawful harassment is precluded based on our findings that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by the bases raised in the formal complaint. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination or unlawful retaliation occurred. 2021003493 4 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. 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). 2021003493 5 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 August 4, 2022 Date