EEOC Appeal 2020001358

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Chantelle M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001358
Agency No. 4K-300-0298-18
DECISION
On November 19, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s October 8, 2019 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Sales, Service, and Distribution Associate at
the Agency’s Civic Center Postal Station in Atlanta, Georgia.
On October 30, 2018, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that
she was subjected to harassment/a hostile work environment based on race (African-American),
national origin (African-American), and color (dark brown) when, on February 1, 2018, June 21
and 29, 2018, and unspecified dates in May and June 2018, after reporting that a co-worker blocked
her pathway with a U-cart, interrupted her while she was attempting to speak with customers,
bullied and/or harassed her, management failed to properly address the matter. Complainant
claimed further that, as a result of the actions identified above, she was forced to retire from
Agency employment on July 31, 2018.
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.

2020001358	2
After the investigation of the formal complaint, Complainant was provided with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). 	Complainant initially requested a hearing. 	Complainant, however, subsequently
withdrew the hearing request. The Agency issued the instant final decision on October 8, 2019,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not submit a brief on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Complainant claims that she was subjected to retaliatory harassment by a co-worker. To establish
this claim, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she
was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the
protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected class; (4)
the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. See
Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
An agency is liable for harassment by a co-worker or other non-supervisor when it “knows or
should have known of the conduct, unless the Agency can show that it took immediate and
corrective action.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d). Whether the Agency's action is appropriate
depends upon “the severity and persistence of the harassment and the effectiveness of any initial
remedial steps.” Taylor v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 05920194 (July 8,
1992). The appropriateness of the Agency's conduct in response to harassment depends upon “the
particular facts of the case, the severity and persistence of the harassment, and the effectiveness of
any initial remedial steps.” Owens v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 05940824
(September 5, 1996). Appropriate corrective action is a response that is reasonably calculated to
stop the harassment.
Here, the record reflects that, during the relevant period, Complainant claimed that her co-worker
(“Co-worker 1”) created a hostile work environment for her. Specifically, she stated that on June
29, 2018, Co-worker 1 came into her work station while she was at lunch and removed her flowers
from a case that belonged to a prior supervisor and left them out of water on a stool to die.
Complainant asserted that Co-worker 1’s action was taken simply to provoke Complainant was
done to provoke her into an altercation with Co-worker 1. Complainant expressly noted that Co-
worker 1’s action was precipitated because Co-worker 1 had previously blocked her path, stole
and broke into her locked file drawers, embarrassed her in front of customers by calling her
judgment “stupid,” and intimidated her.
The Supervisor, Customer Service (African-American, American, brown) stated that during the
relevant period, she was Complainant’s supervisor. 	She asserted that she was not aware of
Complainant’s claim of being blocked by Co-worker 1, or that she was being bullied and/or
harassed.

2020001358	3
The supervisor stated that on June 29, 2018, Complainant informed her that someone had removed
flowers from her vase and placed them on a stool when she returned from her lunch break. She
noted that these flowers were given “to another [co-worker], on the previous day by a customer,
which she did not take home. I was already in route to the location and informed [Complainant] I
would be at the location within 3 minutes. [Complainant] told me she would be waiting outside
because she felt very angry and about to explode.” 	The supervisor stated that she called the
Manager, Customer Service to let her know of the situation and asked for a union steward to report
for a station.
Complainant asserted that Co-worker 1 lied when she claimed the vase was hers. The supervisor
maintained that Complainant knew it was not “her vase, nor the flowers, and she got the vase from
the breakroom. [Complainant] did not know who the vase belonged to.” The supervisor further
noted that Co-worker 1 admitted that she took the flowers out of the vase and placed them on the
stool. She stated that no one had asked to use her vase. She felt “it was disrespectful to her not
being asked. [Co-worker 1] stated [Complainant] does not speak nor talk to her, so why should
she allow her to use her vase without asking.”
Moreover, the supervisor explained that she was not aware of a conduct issue with Co-worker 1
“in regard to harassment, sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. concerning
the incident with the flowers, both the claimant and [Complainant] were instructed any further
incident of that nature would result in possible discipline of conduct unbecoming a postal
employee.”
The Manager, Customer Service (African-American, Hispanic, brown) stated that during the
relevant period she was not aware of Complainant’s harassment allegation. 	She noted that
Complainant “will just text me as well as the supervisor every little difference they had. 	A
supervisor always had to be on site at Civic Center. 	Never the word harassment or [sexual
harassment] was mentioned to me.”
The Manager, Operations Program Support stated that during the relevant period, he interviewed
Complainant, Co-worker 1 and a named co-worker. He stated that following the interviews, he
“took no action based upon interviews from all the parties, just reiterated the zero tolerance policy
to all.”
Here, it appears more likely than not that both Complainant and Co-worker 1 were equally
responsible for the conflicts between them that resulted in Complainant’s claim. There is simply
no evidence to show that Complainant’s race, color or national origin played any role in the
personality conflicts between these two employees. Under the circumstances presented, we
conclude that the supervisor took prompt action by instructing Complainant and Co-worker 1 any
further incident of that nature would result in possible discipline of conduct unbecoming a postal
employee. 	Agency management also advised Complainant that if Co-worker 1 engaged in any
further behavior Complainant believed was harassing to report to the supervisor immediately.

2020001358	4
Complainant admitted during the investigation that she did not complain further to the supervisor
or any other management official. As such, we conclude the Agency is not liable for the alleged
actions of Co-worker 1.
Constructive Discharge
Complainant asserted that she was forced to retire effective July 31, 2018, due to the discriminatory
hostile work environment.
The record contains a copy of Complainant’s email to the Postmaster dated June 20, 2018, in which
she stating that she had decided to retire due to her working conditions. The email added:
I started feeling anxiety and depression. My headaches were unbearable. I Give Up!
I turned in my paperwork for retirement. I texted message [to named Manager] the
day before she received my notification to observe the PRIVACY ACT by not
telling my plans. I recall when I suffered my stroke in September 2016, everyone
knew…No one did as much as send me a get-well card or flowers! Well, the day
after asking [Manager] to be silent [supervisor] came in Civic Center talking loud
congratulating me. 	I told her that was my business to tell! 	Several people have
come to me offering congratulations since. I am so disappointed with the end of
my postal career…I Thank GOD I can GO! [emphasis in its original].
In essence, by arguing her retirement was coerced by the Agency's actions, Complainant is raising
a claim that she was constructively discharged. The Commission has established three elements
which a complainant must prove to substantiate a claim of constructive discharge: (1) a reasonable
person in the complainant's position would have found the working conditions intolerable; (2) the
conduct that constituted discrimination against the complainant created the intolerable working
conditions; and (3) the complainant's involuntary resignation resulted from the intolerable working
conditions. Clemente M. v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160661 (March 11,
2016), citing Walch v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05940688 (Apr. 13, 1995).
Here, in light of our finding that Complainant was not subjected to a hostile work environment
based on discriminatory animus for her race, national origin, and color, we conclude that
Complainant has failed to prove that her retirement was a constructive discharge from the Agency.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not
establish that discrimination occurred.2
2 On appeal, Complainant does not challenge the November 13, 2018 partial dismissal issued by
the agency regarding one other claim. Therefore, we have not addressed this issue in our decision.

2020001358	5
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).
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.

2020001358	6
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 14, 2020
Date