Willia M.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 6, 2017

0120151694 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 6, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Willia M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120151694

Agency No. 4J-604-0145-14

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated March 11, 2015, finding no discrimination
regarding 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,
we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

In her complaint, filed on September 13, 2014, Complainant alleged discrimination based on sex
(female) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was subjected to harassment in that:

(1) Her manager (M1) changed her work schedule and made repeated sexual advances
towards her;

(2) M1 threatened to write her up and hold her accountable for crucial
reports/responsibilities; and

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.
0120151694

2
(3) M1 insulted and ridiculed her.

After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant was notified of her right to
request a hearing. Complainant did not request a hearing. The Agency thus issued its final
Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action,
which Complainant failed to rebut.

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,
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, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie
case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the incidents. At the relevant time, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a
Full-Time Supervisor Customer Service, EAS-17 at its Oak Park Main Post Office in Oak Park,
Illinois.

Regarding claim (1), Complainant claimed that on various dates between January 4, 2014, and
July 17, 2014, M1 changed her work schedule. The Agency indicated that Complainant’s Time
and Attendance Control System (TACS) Employee Everything Report from December 28, 2013,
through October 1, 2014, reflected that her base schedule was listed as 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
with Sunday/Tuesday as her non-scheduled days. The Agency also indicated that at the relevant
time, other supervisors’ schedules were changed and they were instructed to report to work at
various times as well. M1 stated that all supervisors, including Complainant, were treated the
same and their schedules changed temporarily due to operational needs and for coverage of
supervisor vacancies and training. After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed
to show that other similarly situated individuals were disparately subjected to schedule changes.

Complainant also claimed that M1 made repeated sexual advances toward her. Complainant
indicated that on May 8, 2014, M1 called her into his office and informed her that his wife was
out of town and asked if she could come over and she told him “are you kidding with me and I
said no;” and on May 21, 2014, M1 told her “I know I wanted you” and I (Complainant) told him
she did not feel comfortable talking to him and told him “I don’t eat where I shit at.” M1 denied
the incidents and denied he sexually harassed Complainant. Complainant acknowledged that she
did not report M1’s foregoing sexual advances to management at that time.

0120151694

3
Complainant indicated that she reported M1’s harassment to her second level manager (M2) on
July 16, 2014. M2 acknowledged that she received Complainant’s July 16, 2014 email
complaining about harassment concerning her schedule change and she then immediately
investigated the subject matter and interviewed a number of employees including M1 and found
no harassment and informed Complainant of her finding. The record also indicates that during
her August 5, 2014 interview concerning her schedule change, Complainant for the first time
complained about M1’s sexual advances. The Agency’s Labor Relations Office immediately
investigated Complainant’s sexual harassment claim and interviewed M1 and a number of
supervisors/coworkers between August 7 – 14, 2014. M1 denied sexually or non-sexually
harassing Complainant as alleged and other supervisors/coworkers too indicated that they were
not aware of any improper conduct on the part of M1 as alleged. After the investigation, the
Labor Relations Office found Complainant’s harassment claim, sexual or nonsexual,
inconclusive due to no supportive evidence of such a claim. Based on the foregoing, we find that
Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that M1 made sexual advances
toward her as alleged.

Regarding claim (2), Complainant indicated that on October 17, 2014, M1 threatened to write
her up after an employee she supervised left mail in his postal vehicle. M1 stated that on
October 16, 2014, Complainant submitted a District required report indicating that all vehicles
had been physically checked and that no mail had been found. However, the following morning,
stated M1, several tubs of collection mail were found in one of the vehicles Complainant
checked. M1 acknowledged that a National Association of Postal Supervisors (NAPS)
representative was contacted so that an investigative interview could be conducted. However,
stated M1, the investigative interview was never conducted and thus no disciplinary action was
taken against Complainant.

Regarding claim (3), Complainant indicated that on September 29, 2014, M1 called her into his
office and insulted and ridiculed her with an identified supervisor present and told her he did not
want overtime for clerks. The identified supervisor indicated that he probably was in the
meeting with Complainant and M1 but he did not recall the incident as alleged. M1 indicated
that he did not recall the exact date of the incident but it related to a general meeting he usually
conducted with his Mail Processing supervisors, which consisted of Complainant and the
identified supervisor, concerning clerks’ overtime. M1 denied insulting or ridiculing
Complainant; rather M1 stated that he instructed both employees to get preapproval for clerks’
overtime from him.

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. Regarding her claim of harassment,
we find that Complainant failed to establish that it was related to any protected basis of
discrimination. Furthermore, we find that Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected
to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct as alleged. Regarding the alleged schedule changes,
Complainant has not claimed or shown that other similarly situated individuals were disparately
subjected to schedule changes. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show
that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged.
0120151694

4

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in 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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a
legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your 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).

0120151694

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

November 06, 2017
Date