EEOC Appeal 2020000378

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Lida G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000378
Agency No. 4G-700-0162-18
DECISION
On September 3, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s August 2, 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 Carrier Technician at the Agency’s New
Iberia, Louisiana Post Office.
On November 20, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging she was subjected to
harassment/a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal
for prior EEO activity when:
1. 	on August 14, 2018, after informing the Postmaster that she was taking classes to
become a facilitator, the Postmaster stated reasons for her not to take the class and
slandered her name;
2. 	on or about August 16-17, 2018, and on other previous dates, the Postmaster spoke to
her in a harassing and/or demeaning manner;
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.

2020000378	2
3. 	on August 21, 2018 and on other previous dates, she was observed while performing
her duties; and
4. 	on August 11 and 23 2018 and September 25, 2018, she was bypassed and not assigned
to work mounted/riding routes.
The Agency accepted the complaint and, on August 2, 2019, issued a final decision 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
To establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, 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); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). See also, Enforcement
Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
In other words, 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 a protected bases – in this case, her race and prior EEO activity.
Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will the question
of Agency liability present itself.
During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Carrier Technician at the Agency’s New
Iberia, Louisiana Post Office. 	Complainant’s retaliation claim is based on her seeking EEO
counseling on the instant complaint on August 16, 2018, as well as several prior EEO complaints.
It is undisputed that the Postmaster and other members of management were aware of
Complainant’s EEO activity.
Regarding allegation 1, Complainant asserted that on August 14, 2018, she asked the Postmaster
about taking classes to become a facilitator. She said the Postmaster stated reasons for her not to
take the class, but said she would look into it. Complainant alleged that later the Postmaster spoke
with the instructor and another facilitator and had a discussion about whether Complainant would
be “any trouble” or cause any “drama.” Complainant believed race discrimination was at play
because a white employee had previously attended the facilitator training. The Postmaster
(Caucasian) stated that she has never told Complainant not to take the class to become a facilitator.

2020000378	3
She further stated she had no knowledge of Complainant’s claims regarding speaking to the
instructor and another facilitator.
Regarding allegation 2, Complainant alleged that on or about August 16-17, 2018, and on other
dates, the Postmaster spoke to her in a harassing and/or demeaning manner. Complainant stated
that after the Postmaster learned the she had sought EEO counseling on the matter, she cancelled
Complainant’s facilitator training. There is, however, no evidence of this.2 She further alleged the
Postmaster again bashed Complainant’s name and character to another person. Complainant did
not identify what was allegedly said by the Postmaster or to whom. The Postmaster denied
speaking to or about Complainant in a harassing and/or demeaning manner.
Regarding allegation 3, Complainant alleged that on August 21, 2018, and other dates, she was
observed while performing her duties. She does not allege that any adverse action resulted from
this observation. The Postmaster stated that while she does not recall the August 21, 2018 incident
in particular, she and other members of management routinely conduct street observations of the
carriers as part of their supervisory duties. She said that, in this regard, Complainant was treated
like all the other carriers.
Regarding allegation 4, Complainant claimed that on August 11 and 23 2018, and September 25,
2018, she was bypassed and not assigned to work mounted/riding routes.
The Supervisor (African-American) explained at that time he was responsible for assigning
Complainant’s routes. He stated that as a T-6 (Carrier Technician), Complainant was assigned to
five different routes to deliver mail during the absence of each route’s regular carrier. Therefore,
whether or not her route was mounted or walking was based on the route assignment of the regular
carrier. He also noted that assignment of routes is governed by the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement. He denied Complainant, or other black carriers, were denied assignment to
mounted and/or riding routes. He also stated that carriers were allowed to take other routes multiple
times outside of their bids due to sick calls.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the weight of the evidence does not establish
that Complainant’s race and prior EEO activity played a role in any of the incidents that form her
discriminatory harassment claim. Her claim of harassment is precluded based on our findings that
Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by her
protected bases. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
2 We also note that Complainant did not directly raise the cancellation of any training as an issue
in her EEO complaint.

2020000378	4
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s finding no discrimination because the preponderance of the evidence
of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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.

2020000378	5
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
August 12, 2020
Date