EEOC Appeal 2020000612

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lyn P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000612
Agency No. 1K-221-0023-19
DECISION
Complainant 	appeals 	to 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission) from the Agency’s final decision dated August 22, 2019, 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, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked at the Agency as a Mail
Processing Clerk, PS-06, at the Northern Virginia Processing and Distribution Center in
Merrifield, Virginia.
On February 25, 2019, Complainant filed her complaint alleging discrimination based on
race/color 	(Black), 	religion 	(Seventh 	Day 	Adventist), 	sex 	(female), 	and 	national 	origin
(Jamaican) when:
1. 	On January 14, 2019, her request for sick leave was denied; 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.

2020000612	2
2. 	On a date not specified, she was issued a LOW (Letter of Warning) for Unsatisfactory
Attendance.
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 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 	Complainant did not request a hearing.
The Agency issued its final decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to rebut. Complainant filed the instant appeal
but made no arguments on 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,
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").
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). 	Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would
support an inference of discrimination. 	Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576
(1978). 	Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v.
Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears
the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. 	See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally
consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action
at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas
analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. 	See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health

2020000612	3
and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Regarding claim 1, Complainant claimed that on January 14, 2019, her sick leave was denied,
and she received no pay for that day. Complainant’s supervisor (S1) indicated that Complainant
was not denied sick leave. The record does not indicate that Complainant requested and/or was
denied sick leave on January 14, 2019. 	S1 stated that on January 14, 2019, Complainant was
charged with 10.00 work hours, 2.00 hours overtime hours, and 6.50 night-work premium hours.
Regarding claim 2, the record indicates that on January 14, 2019, S1 issued Complainant the
LOW, dated January 9, 2019, due to her unsatisfactory attendance. 	In the LOW, S1 listed nine
unscheduled absences Complainant had from August 15, 2018 to December 14, 2018.
After a review of the record, we, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima
facie case of discrimination, find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its action. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant 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. 2
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0620)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the 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.
2 Although the Agency also dismissed claim 1 for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.107(a)(1), we need not discuss such since the Agency’s finding of no discrimination
concerning the subject matter is affirmed.

2020000612	4
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, 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.

2020000612	5
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
October 21, 2020
Date