EEOC Appeal 2020001864

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jimmy C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001864
Agency No. 4K-290-0091-18
DECISION
On December 7, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s October 18, 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Labor Custodian at the Agency’s Columbia
Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in Columbia, South Carolina.
On October 9, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging the Agency discriminated
against him based on race (African-American), sex (male), and in reprisal for protected EEO
activity when:
1. 	on or about February 6, 2018 and July 6, 2018, he had been charged with being Absent
Without Official Leave (AWOL);
2. 	on April 3, 2018 and July 7, 2018, he was not selected for a supervisor position at the
Lexington, South Carolina Post Office;
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.

2020001864	2
3. 	on or about April 30, 2018 and August 7, 2018, after being selected for a Supervisor
Customer Service position at the Orangeburg, South Carolina Post Office, he was
subsequently informed that he would not be selected for the position;
4. 	on May 1, 2018, he was not selected for a supervisor position at the Timmonsville,
South Carolina Post Office;
5. 	on February 9, 2018, his access to the ACE system was revoked;
6. 	on June 29, 2018, he became aware that when the Chapin, South Carolina Post Office
requested him for an Acting Supervisor position, management at the Columbia P&DC
stated that he was not “any good;”
7. 	on July 9, 2018, his request for a transfer to the motor vehicle craft has been denied;
and
8. 	on March 10, 2019, he was charged with being AWOL.
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 18, 2019,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed.
ANAYLSIS AND FINDINGS
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 case of discrimination by presenting facts which, 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 based on 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

2020001864	3
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,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
The evidence developed during the investigation of the complaint establishes that responsible
Agency management articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, as more
fully discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, Complainant asserted that on or about February 6, 2018 and July 6, 2018, he
had been charged with being AWOL.
The Postmaster of Columbia P&DC (African-American female) explained that on February 6,
2018 and July 2018, she charged Complainant with being AWOL because Complainant did not
report to work or call in. 	She also maintained that Complainant did not submit a leave request
form for the time he was absent from work.
Regarding claim 2, Complainant alleged that on April 3, 2018 and July 7, 2018, he was not selected
for a supervisor position at the Lexington, South Carolina Post Office.
The Postmaster of Columbia P&DC was the selecting official for the subject position. She stated
that Complainant did not let her know that he had applied for the position and she did not see his
application. She asserted that the selectee had the requisite experience and skills for the position
and was selected non-competitively for a lateral reassignment.
Regarding claim 3, Complainant alleged that after being initially selected for a Supervisor,
Customer Service position at the Orangeburg, South Carolina Post Office, he was subsequently
informed that he would not be selected for the position.
The Postmaster of Orangeburg Post Office (African-American male) was the selecting official for
the Supervisor, Customer Service position. He averred that he interviewed the candidates, asking
the same questions. 	Following the interviews, the Postmaster stated that he selected a named
female candidate for the Supervisor, Customer Service position. Moreover, the Postmaster stated
that he did not select Complainant because he missed several questions in response to his interview
questions. He does not know why Complainant believed he was ever selected for the position.
Regarding claim 4, Complainant claimed that on May 1, 2018, he was not selected for a supervisor
position at the Timmonsville, South Carolina Post Office.
The Postmaster of the Timmonsville Post Office (African-American female) was the selecting
official for the supervisory position in question. She acknowledged that Complainant submitted
an application for the subject position.

2020001864	4
The Postmaster stated that she sought an applicant with Rural Delivery and City Delivery
knowledge. She stated the following the interviews, she chose the selectee for the subject position
because she was deemed best qualified as she had “Rural Delivery, City Deliver[y] and Retail
experience.” 	The Postmaster noted that Complainant had City Delivery experience, but was
lacking in Rural Delivery and Retail experience.
Regarding claim 5, Complainant asserted that on February 9, 2018, his access to the ACE system
was revoked.
The Postmaster of Columbia P&DC explained that Complainant’s access to the ACE system was
revoked because he was no longer detailed as a Level 7, Supervisor Customer Service and no
longer required access.
Regarding claim 6, Complainant alleged that on June 29, 2018, he became aware that when the
Chapin, South Carolina Post Office requested him for an Acting Supervisor position, management
at the Columbia P&DC stated that he was “not any good.”
The Postmaster of the Columbia P&DC stated that when her supervisor asked her about
Complainant’s work ethic, she did respond, “I don’t recommend it [placement into the position]
based on the relationship I had with him while working with me.” 	The Postmaster stated that
Complainant sometimes failed to show up for work and was late on other occasions. 	The
Postmaster stated that Complainant was informed that he was to work when scheduled and that his
position required him to hold his subordinates accountable for their own attendance.
Regarding claim 7, Complainant alleged that on July 9, 2018, his request for a transfer to the motor
vehicle craft has been denied.
The Postmaster of Columbia P&DC denied being involved in the denial of Complainant’s request
for a transfer to the motor vehicle craft. The eReassign Coordinator (Caucasian male), noted that
on July 9, 2018, Complainant provided his request to transfer to the motor vehicle craft. However,
the eReassign Coordinator explained that Complainant “had not met the 18_ month requirement to
be eligible for an eReassign transfer within the same District.”
With respect to claim 8, Complainant’s AWOL on March 10, 2019, the Supervisor, Maintenance
Operations stated that Complainant was charged with being AWOL because his start time was
6:00 a.m. and did not come to work and did not call in until 12:30 p.m. There was no indication
that he was unable to call in earlier.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that Complainant failed to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that each of the responsible management official’s proffered
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the disputed actions were actually pretext designed to
mask discrimination. Beyond his bare allegations in his complaint, Complainant provided no
evidence that his race or sex played any role in these events.

2020001864	5
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record
does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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. 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).

2020001864	6
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
September 23, 2020
Date