EEOC Appeal 2020000449

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Iris D,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000449
Agency No. 4F-913-0004-19
DECISION
On September 16, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s August 12, 2019 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint claiming 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 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 Letter Carrier at the Agency’s Beech Post
Office in Visalia, California.
On January 18, 2019, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that
the Agency discriminated against her based on race/national origin (Hispanic/Filipino American),
color (Brown), religion (Apostolic), disability, age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when:
1. 	on August 28, 2018, her supervisor discussed her medical condition with co-workers;
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.

2020000449	2
2. 	on October 10, 2018, her supervisor yelled at her;
3. 	on October 12, 2018, her supervisor ordered her not to park in two of the employee
parking spaces; and
4. 	on October 25, 2018, her request for 240 hours of advanced sick leave was denied.
After the investigation of the formal complaint, 2 Complainant was provided with a copy of the
report of the investigation and with a notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence.
Complainant did not respond.
In its August 12, 2019 final decision, the Agency found no discrimination based on the evidence
developed during the investigation.
The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not submit a timely brief on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Disparate Treatment: Claim 4
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, she
must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. 	See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). 	The burden then shifts to the agency to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. 	See 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 and Human Services,
2 The record reflects that during the investigation, Complainant did not submit an affidavit.

2020000449	3
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Complainant claimed that on October 25, 2018, her request for 240 hours of
advanced sick leave was denied.
The Acting Postmaster (Caucasian, white, Christian American, over 40) was responsible for
receiving and reviewing Complainant’s request for advance leave. 	She acknowledged denying
Complainant’s request because at the time that Complainant asked for the advance, she was already
in debt for negative sick leave of approximately 80 hours. 	She stated that she contacted Labor
Relations, “as I was not provided any other documentation other than [Complainant’s] written
request, which was not very specific. I have been in management for 13-14 years with the postal
service and I have never granted anyone [advanced] sick leave.”
After careful review of the record, we conclude that Complainant failed to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the responsible management official’s proffered legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for the disputed action was actually pretext designed to mask
discrimination. 	Beyond her bare assertions, Complainant provided no evidence that her race,
national origin, religion, color, disability, age or retaliatory animus played any role in this event.
Harassment: Claims 1 - 3
Complainant has also alleged that incidents as claims 1 – 3 in her formal complaint, created a
discriminatory hostile work environment. 	To prove her harassment claim, Complainant must
establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a
“reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or
abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of her protected bases
– in this case, her race, national origin, religion, color, disability, age, and prior protected activity.
Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will the question
of Agency liability present itself. 	Here, as discussed below, Complainant simply has provided
inadequate evidence to support her claim that her treatment was the result of her race, national
origin, religion, color, disability, age, and prior protected activity.
Complainant’s supervisor from August 2018 to March 2019 (“S1”) (mixed race (African-
American, Portuguese, Indian, Irish), American, Catholic, white, over 40) denied discussing
Complainant’s medical condition with anyone.
Regarding claim 2, Complainant claimed that on October 10, 2018, her supervisor yelled at her.
S1 again denied the allegation stating, “I have never yelled at the Complainant. I actually have
statements from other employees that state [Complainant] has yelled at me on the workroom
floor.”

2020000449	4
Regarding claim 3, S1 explained that Complainant was parking in the designated spaces for
supervisors and the staff car. 	She informed Complainant that she should not be parking in the
designated spaces and that the carriers/clerks should park in their designated lot. 	S1 stated that
when Complainant “informed me that she had limitations, which was [the reason] she was parking.
However, she did not have a handicap tag for her car or any doctor’s note. I did tell her that if she
had such documentation then I would make arrangements based on that information for her to park
elsewhere.”
In summary, as detailed above, the responsible Agency officials either affirmatively denied events
occurred as alleged by Complainant or offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the
disputed actions. 	We note again that Complainant neither completed an affidavit during the
investigation nor submitted timely arguments on appeal. Therefore, beyond the bare assertions in
her complaint there is simply no evidence that discrimination or retaliatory animus played any role
whatsoever in the incidents comprising her claim of a hostile work environment.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination because the preponderance of
the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.3
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.
3 On appeal, Complainant does not challenge the February 12, 2019 partial dismissal issued by the
Agency regarding four other claims (allegations that on August 28, 2018, her supervisor coerced
her into signing a PS Form 2499 and refused to allow her to meet with her OWCP representative;
on October 2, 2018, her supervisor refused to give her OWCP forms; on August 28, 2018 and
October 2 and 29, 2018, the supervisor refused to let her meet with her union steward; and on
September 28, 2018, her supervisor changed her limited duty assignment and issued her a flow
chart without allowing her to meet with her doctor to discuss the new duties). Therefore, we have
not addressed these issues in our decision.

2020000449	5
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.
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.

2020000449	6
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