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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 13, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001576 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 13, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ranae P.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2022001576 Agency No. 1F-642-0005-21 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 January 24, 2022, 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Level 7 Maintenance Mechanic at the Agency’s Network Distribution Center (NDC) in Kansas City, Kansas. On August 9, 2021, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discriminatory harassment on the bases of race (Caucasian), and sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, when: 1. on April 22, 2021, Complainant felt threatened when a Supervisor Maintenance Operations (SMO) stated that he was “the king of corrective action”; 2. on April 23, 2021, Complainant was given an official job discussion and told she missed a piece of mail, and her request for leave was denied; 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. 2022001576 2 3. on or about April 24, 2021, Complainant was told to stay out of the control room and be visible on the workroom floor; 4. on May 7, 2021, Complainant was micromanaged; told not to take a late lunch; and told that she was not asked to do overtime because she had changed into her street clothes; 5. on May 15, 2021, Complainant’s request for sick leave was changed to absent without leave (AWOL); 6. on May 16, 2021, July 9, 2021, and other unspecified dates, Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to work overtime; 7. on May 27, 2021, Complainant was given an Investigative Interview; 8. on June 15, 2021, SMO was unprofessional and did not respond to Complainant’s request to start a downtime report; 9. on June 18, 2021, and July 9, 2021, Complainant was assigned to calls, which is usually assigned to the Level 9 employees; 10. on June 25, 2021, Complainant was assigned to clean a slide out of the normal rotation and when it was time to take her break; 11. on June 29, 2021, Complainant received two observation forms, which SMO shoved into her hands, and on July 10, 2021, Complainant received an observation form; 12. on July 10, 2021, Complainant was accused of being in the control room for 15 minutes and not completing her mail search; and 13. on October 8, 2021, SMO came to the Kansas City NDC, despite not working there, and he walked through the workroom floor, and Complainant believed it was an attempt to intimidate her. 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 EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). When the Agency did not receive a copy of Complainant’s request for 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 Agency noted that incidents 2, 5, 6, 7, and 11, were independent claims outside of the harassment claim and analyzed them in the context of disparate treatment. The Agency assumed a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination and retaliation, and it found that management officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions. 2022001576 3 For claim 2, SMO stated that he gave Complainant and another employee an official discussion for failing to complete an inspection of the induction lines. SMO averred that, when he asked them if they had done so, they responded yes, but SMO saw that the induction lines were littered with mail. SMO also stated that he denied Complainant’s leave request because there were already too many people on leave, and they needed coverage. Regarding claim 5, SMO testified that Complainant did not submit a request for leave and had not provided a leave designation. Since Complainant was one hour and fifteen minutes late to work without calling, SMO marked her AWOL for that time. For claim 6, SMO asserted that he was not responsible for overtime, and that the supervisors on the following shift determined if they needed someone and asked the individual(s) directly. Regarding claim 7, SMO confirmed that he gave Complainant an investigative interview because she failed to follow instructions and spent a considerable amount of time in the control room, where she performed no work. SMO added that he spoke with a union representative, who volunteered to speak with Complainant, after SMO agreed to not take disciplinary action. For claim 11, SMO denied shoving anything into Complainant’s hand when he gave her observation forms for instances when he observed her performing no work. SMO explained that he coached Complainant on her work ethic and brought these deficiencies to her attention. The Maintenance Manager confirmed that Complainant received the work observations, which are a requirement and common practice. The Agency then found that there was no evidence that the proffered reasons were pretexts for discrimination. The Agency noted that management officials took steps to address Complainant’s behavior, and her disagreement with the actions did not demonstrate discriminatory animus. Regarding the harassment claim, the Agency determined that the record did not support a finding that Complainant was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct as alleged. For example, for incident 1, SMO explained that he informed Complainant that, when he was a new supervisor, he was viewed as “the king of corrective action,” but learned to not be so quick to issue corrective action. SMO stated that he informed Complainant of instances when she blatantly disregarded his instructions, and he asked that she follow directives from management. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Complainant was subjected to unwelcome and unwarranted conduct, the Agency determined that the record was devoid of any evidence that management officials singled her out or treated her unfairly because of her protected status or activity. Further, the vast majority of the actions occupied the normal scope and course of industrial relations and daily interactions between a supervisor/manager and his employees, and despite Complainant’s attempt to inflate these daily activities into a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment, the incidents did not come anywhere near the level of pervasiveness or severity necessary to establish a hostile work environment. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not file an appeal brief and the Agency did not respond to Complainant’s appeal. 2022001576 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 Chap. 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 offered no arguments to challenge the Agency’s findings. Upon careful review of the Agency’s decision and the evidence of record, we find that the Agency correctly analyzed the facts and law of this case to determine that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final 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. 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 2022001576 5 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. 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. 2022001576 6 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 13, 2022 Date