[Redacted], Ranae L., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 27, 2022

Appeal No. 2021003784 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 27, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ranae L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2021003784 Hearing No. 520-2017-00724X Agency No. 4B-060-0059-17 DECISION 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 13, 2021, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Carrier Technician at the Agency’s Cheshire Post Office in Cheshire, Connecticut. On May 31, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her disability (physical) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, when her September 19, 2016, request for a Health Benefits Refund (HBR) was not paid, despite several requests.2 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. 2 The HRB Program reimburses employees when the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs deducts too much for their health benefits premiums. The deduction during the first 2021003784 2 After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing, which Complainant opposed. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. As an initial matter, the AJ noted that it was undisputed that Complainant received her HBR from June 24, 2018, through December 8, 2018. As such, Complainant refocused her claim for the allegedly discriminatory non-payment between December 13, 2015, and June 23, 2018. However, the AJ determined that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination or retaliation. Specifically, Complainant was not aware of anyone who was paid, or not paid, a refund. While Complainant pointed to Agency reports as generally identifying individuals who were paid refunds, Complainant was named in the reports as a refund recipient. Further, the AJ noted that Complainant did not identify any similarly situated individuals who were treated differently under similar circumstances, nor established a nexus between her previous EEO activity and the challenged action. The AJ also found that the Agency provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; namely, Complainant was not eligible for an HBR. The AJ stated that it was undisputed that the Agency informed Complainant that, as a result of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program’s decision to suspend data transmission to the Agency regarding workers’ compensation benefits, it was unable to reliably identify employees who were eligible for refunds. The AJ then determined that Complainant did not prove pretext for discrimination since her arguments of discriminatory and retaliatory animus were speculative and conclusory. The AJ concluded that there were no outstanding issues of material fact in genuine dispute, and that the Agency was entitled to summary judgment. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed, and Complainant provided a statement in support of her appeal. The Agency did not respond to Complainant’s appeal. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non- moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. year of compensable disability is at the Agency rate, but afterwards, the deduction is at the Office of Personnel Management rate. Report of Investigation at 123. 2021003784 3 In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and she must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. On appeal, Complainant asserts that she is still owed a refund of $992.68 for December 13, 2015, through June 23, 2018. Complainant argues that the Manager, Health and Resource Management (MHRM) is in charge of issuing refunds and has knowledge of Complainant’s prior EEO complaints because MHRM was the supervisor of the individual against whom Complainant filed an EEO complaint. Complainant also contends that MHRM’s credibility is at issue because only she can answer why Complainant has not been paid. However, we find that Complainant only provides broad allegations, without any supporting evidence. The Commission has found that mere allegations, speculations, and conclusory statements, without more, are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Lee v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012), citing Baker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01981962 (June 26, 2001), req. for recon. denied, EEOC Request No. 05A10914 (Oct. 1, 2001). Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as Complainant’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 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. 2021003784 4 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). 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. 2021003784 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 September 27, 2022 Date