EEOC Appeal 2020001050

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Mike J.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001050
Agency No. 4C-170-0089-18
DECISION
On October 24, 2019, 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
September 20, 2019, final decision concerning his 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., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a full-time, Lead Sales and Services Associate
or (lead clerk, career status), Level 7, at the Agency’s Uptown Station in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
In June 2018, Complainant used the Agency’s eReassign program to request a transfer to a part-
time clerk position, Level 6, the Post Office in Lemont Furnace, Pennsylvania. In a letter dated
June 27, 2018, the Agency notified Complainant that he was being considered for the Lemont
Furnace clerk position based on his eReassign request. Effective September 1, 2018, the Agency
decided to convert a non-career Postal Service Employee whom the Agency had previously
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.

2 	2020001050
assigned to Keisterville, Pennsylvania, to the to the part-time career clerk position at the Lemont
Furnace Post Office.
On October 27, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him based on race (Middle Eastern), national origin (Jordan), religion
(Muslim), and age (46) when, on July 16, 2018, Complainant’s transfer request was denied.
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation
and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing. Through his legal representative, on August 20, 2019,
Complainant withdrew his request his request for a hearing. On August 21, 2019, the AJ issued
an order remanding the matter to the Agency for a final decision.
On September 20, 2019, the Agency issued the instant final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant contended that his supervisor (Caucasian,
United States, Lutheran, age 40) wrongfully prevented his reassignment by charging Complainant
as AWOL on days when Complainant had approved leave. 	The Agency had issued Complainant
a letter of warning for unsatisfactory attendance on July 11, 2018. Counsel for Complainant states
that this letter of warning caused Complainant’s transfer request to be denied based on
Complainant having an unacceptable attendance record according to the Agency’s letter dated July
16, 2018. Complainant’s attorney asserts that Complainant was the only employee who had been
charged with AWOL for days on which he had approved leave. 	Complainant successfully
challenged the 	letter of warning through the grievance process under the collective bargaining
agreement between the Agency and Complainant’s union. 	As a result, in September 2018, the
Agency rescinded the letter of warning. Complainant’s counsel argues that the letter of warning
was falsely manufactured by the Agency. 	Though his attorney, Complainant states that the
Agency’s attendance-related reason for denying his transfer was pretextual. 	In support of this
position, Complainant’s attorney states the Agency had permitted reassignment of another
employee who had been disciplined for attendance issues.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter, we note that Complainant initially requested a hearing. However, his attorney
withdrew the request. As a result, we do not have the benefit of an AJ's determinations regarding
the witlessness’ credibility.
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b),
the Agency's final 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 Chapter 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,

3 	2020001050
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”).
We reviewed Complainant’s claims of disparate treatment in the denial of his transfer under the
three-part analysis that the Supreme Court of the United States established in McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he must first establish a
prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to
an inference of discrimination—that a prohibited motivation was a factor in the adverse
employment action. See Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then
shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas
Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden,
Complainant had 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 Ctr, v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993);
see also U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983). At all times,
Complainant had the burden of persuasion, and he had to show by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000).
We will assume that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the raised
bases, and now turn to the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions. 	The Agency stated
Complainant had requested 136 hours of annual leave for the period from June 13, 2018 through
July 7, 2018. 	In May 2018, Complainant’s manager informed Complainant that the leave
requested exceeded his annual leave balance of 122.5 hours. Thereafter, Complainant declined to
curtail his vacation plans to correspond with his leave balance. 	The Agency reasoned
Complainant’s manager was justified in charging Complainant as AWOL for his absences on July
6, 2018 and July 7, 2018. The letter of warning issued to Complainant also charged him for taking
unscheduled sick leave on May 7, 2018. 	Through the Union Grievance process, the letter of
warning against Complainant was rescinded and the Agency changed Complainant’s AWOL to
leave without pay. Notwithstanding the Agency’s withdrawn discipline against Complainant, the
Postmaster in Lemont Furnace based her decision on her total review of Complainant’s attendance
records. 	When she asked an Agency manager the record reflects that the Lemont Furnace
Postmaster expressed concern about Complainant’s attendance records. Based on those records,
the Lemont Furnace Postmaster determined that Complainant used what she considered a
considerable amount of both scheduled leave and unscheduled leave. 	Accordingly, we find the
Agency has proffered a non-discriminatory rationale for not approving Complainant’s eReassign
request.
Finally, we evaluated Complainant’s accusations that the Agency’s reason was merely pretextual
to mask animus toward his religion, age, nationality and race. Although it ultimately determined
that Complaint’s conduct did not warrant a letter of warning, the Agency legitimately justified not
transferring Complainant based on issues related to exhaustion of his leave balances.

4 	2020001050
We were not persuaded that a reasonable fact finder would rationally find this explanation
unworthy of credence. Opare-Addo v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (Nov.
20, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0620)
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.
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.

5 	2020001050
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. 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 16, 2020
Date