EEOC Appeal 2020000782

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lawrence B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000782
Hearing No. 420-2019-00084X
Agency No. 4G-350-0155-17
DECISION
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 19, 2019, final
order 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Information Systems
Specialist, EAS-19, at the Agency’s facility in Birmingham, Alabama. On November 16, 2017,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity when on July 10, 2017, his request for a downgrade to the position
of Supervisor, Maintenance Operation was denied.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
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.

2020000782	2
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ
assigned to the case found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on September 17, 2019, finding
no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. On appeal,
Complainant argues that the AJ erred in issuing a decision without a hearing and reiterates his
contention that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final 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). 	The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a
decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth
in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary
judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary
standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s
function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for
trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment
stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An
issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of
the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip.
Corp., 846 F.2D 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the
outcome of the case. 	If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not
appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. 	In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination that
the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. 	Petty v. Defense Security
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision without a hearing was
appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim,
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 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 802 n. 13.

2020000782	3
The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To
ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s
explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
Here, we concur with the AJ’s finding that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima
facie 	case 	of 	reprisal 	discrimination, 	the 	Agency 	nonetheless 	articulated 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the record reflects that on July 10, 2017,
Complainant requested a downgrade from his information specialist position to one of two vacant
positions of supervisor, maintenance operations, which had been posted and for which the vacancy
announcement had already closed. Complainant received initial approval for the transfer from the
manager, maintenance operations, however the senior plant manager disapproved the transfer and
selected the two applicants with maintenance experience who were deemed to be most qualified.
We note that the record shows that, unlike the selectees, Complainant did not have any experience
in the maintenance craft, nor did he discuss his request for a transfer with the senior plant manager.
As such, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its
actions were pretextual or that he was subjected to unlawful reprisal.
CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, there are no
genuine issues of material fact. We further find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without
a hearing finding no discrimination. Therefore, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination
is AFFIRMED.
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.

2020000782	4
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.

2020000782	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
September 29, 2020
Date