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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 19, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003702 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 19, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Willetta L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020003702 Agency No. 4E-640-0068-19 DECISION Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated February 13, 2020, finding no discrimination concerning her 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier, Q-01, at the Waldo Station in Kansas City, Missouri. On June 11, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment based on race (Black), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. On March 18, 2019, she was badgered by her supervisor (S1) when: a. S1 approached her about her odometer reading; 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. 2020003702 2 b. S1 constantly asked her if it was her first day back; c. S1 reproached her about finishing in eight hours and completing Form 3996; and d. S1 asked her about the correctness of having her initial the copy of a stand-up talk. 2. On March 22, 2019, she was given an hour of overtime. 3. On March 25, 2019, S1 conducted a street observation on her and requested her driver's license three times. 4. On April 6, 2019, she requested a dog letter and S1 walked off. 5. On May 3, 2019, and ongoing, S1 constantly uses her case as an area to do S1’s paperwork. 6. On February 9, 2019, she was singled out for not being in uniform. 7. On February 15, 2019, she was denied overtime to complete her route. 8. On February 16, 2019, she felt management was referring to her when a comment was made regarding nobody touching DPS (Delivery Point Sequence) mail in the station. 9. On March 6, 2019, and March 7, 2019, she was mandated to work overtime. 10. On March 9, 2019, she received a note mandating her to work on March 11, 2019, her scheduled day off; and 11. On September 26, 2019, she was given an Investigative Interview. After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant did not request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The Agency issued its final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to rebut. Regarding claim 1, S1 denied badgering Complainant or asking her constantly if it was her first day back. S1 indicated that all carriers, including Complainant, were required to enter odometer and complete PS Form 3996 if they could not finish their route in 8 hours. Complainant was asked to sign a copy of the safety talk because she requested for a later start time than she was scheduled and frequently missed the service talks. Regarding claim 2, S1 indicated that Complainant was accommodated to report to work later time at 8:00 am instead of her scheduled time at 7:00 am in order to accommodate her child-care situation. On March 22, 2019, Complainant was given the amount of overtime comparable to other carriers’ overtime splits. All working carriers, including Complainant, were given overtime on that day. 2020003702 3 Regarding claim 3, it was S1’s job as a supervisor to conduct a street observation on Complainant, as well as other working carriers, and request driver's license. S1 indicated Complainant refused to show her driver’s license as required and S1 reported that to her manager. Regarding claim 4, S1 stated that when on April 6, 2019, Complainant requested a dog letter, S1 did not know where the file was for the dog alert/issues. S1 thus told Complainant to request it from her manager. The manager provided Complainant the requested dog letter on that day, i.e., on April 6, 2019. Regarding claim 5, S1 did not impede Complainant’s ability to case her mail. S1 was speaking to another carrier concerning work related issues around Complainant’s case vicinity. Regarding claim 6, it was S1’s job to make sure carriers, including Complainant, conform to the Agency’s uniform requirement. Regarding claim 7, the record indicates that Complainant was not denied overtime. She was given 2.40 penalty overtime on February 15, 2019. Regarding claim 8, S1 was talking to another carrier about a service talk regarding DPS mail not about Complainant as alleged. Regarding claim 9, S1 indicated that overtime was mandated in a rotating basis among working carriers, including Complainant. Complainant was required to work to assist with overtime due to staffing and mail volume. Regarding claim 10, S1 indicated that, unknown to her, an error was made mandating Complainant to work on her scheduled day off on March 11, 2019. The error was corrected and Complainant actually did not work on March 11, 2019. Regarding claim 11, Complainant’s manager indicated that she gave Complainant an Investigative Interview because on September 24, 2019, she went over her 8-hour assignment without submitting a Form 3996 as required. Complainant filed the instant 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 (EEO MD-110), 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, 2020003702 4 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"). After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons were a mere pretext for discrimination. It is noted that ordinary managerial and supervisory duties include assuring compliance with agency policy and procedures, monitoring subordinates, scheduling the workload (here, scheduling overtime), scrutinizing and evaluating performance, providing job-related advice and counsel, taking action in the face of performance shortcomings, and to otherwise manage the workplace. See Erika H. v. Dep’t of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 0120151781 (June 16, 2017). Regarding the discrete incidents, we find that Complainant failed to show that any of the actions were motivated by discrimination. Upon review, we find that Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in her protected groups who were treated differently under similar circumstances. Furthermore, the Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant has failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination 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. 2020003702 5 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. 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. 2020003702 6 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 July 19, 2021 Date