EEOC Appeal 2020000811

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Matt M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000811
Agency No. 1F-914-0011-19
DECISION
On November 9, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s November 5, 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler
Equipment Operator at the Agency’s Santa Clarita Processing & Distribution (P&DC) in Santa
Clarita, California.
On May 11, 2019, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the
Agency discriminated against him on the basis of race (African-American) when:
1. 	since January 1, 2019, and continuing, management has failed to rotate assigned work
areas, resulting in him being assigned to more stressful and physically demanding work
areas; and
2. 	on February 23, 2019, he was issued a Letter of Warning dated February 6, 2019.
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.

2020000811	2
After the investigation of the formal complaint, 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 November 5, 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
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,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC
Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Here, we find that the responsible Agency officials articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for the disputed actions as detailed below.
Regarding claim 1, Complainant asserted that since January 1, 2019, and continuing, management
has failed to rotate assigned work areas, resulting in him being assigned to more stressful and
physically demanding work areas.

2020000811	3
The Supervisor Distribution Operations was Complainant’s supervisor during the relevant period.
She asserted that Complainant was rotated to the Automated Package Processing System (APPS)
during his work schedule. Specifically, the supervisor stated that in January 2019 and February
2019, Complainant was rotated to the Automated Package and Bundle Sorters (APBS) 1 and APBS
2 machines more frequently that other Mail Handlers in his work area. 	She noted Complainant
was having some problems with keeping up with the processes of pulling the Priority Mail
containers from the dock to the APPS machine, and Side 2 of the APPS was the furthest from the
dock. She further noted that the APBS machine is an easier machine to work on as it is for First
Class Mail instead of Priority Mail and First Class Mail containers are processed at a slower pace.
Further, the supervisor stated that she told Complainant that the APPS, APBS1 and APBS 2 were
work areas that were on one bid job, and he could be assigned as needed. She asserted that this
was also written on his bid assignment.
The supervisor stated that in March 2019, Complainant asked her to put him on pull scan mail
from the APPS instead of working on the APBS machines because he was not getting along with
another Supervisor Distribution Operations. She told Complainant that she would try to schedule
him more on the APPS machine on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays.
Complainant asserted that he was rotated the most of the Mail Handlers assigned to the APPS work
area that some Mail Handlers were not rotated at all. The supervisor acknowledged that during
January 2019 and February 2019, “ APPS #2 is a much easier machine to work on “its first class
instead of priority. Less demanding to keep up. [Complainant] was having some issues keeping
up with the processes of pulling the priority containers from the dock to the APPS. Side 2 of APPS
is the furthest from the dock. First class containers are processed at a slower pace of the APBS.”
Regarding claim 2, Complainant alleged that on February 23, 2019, he was issued a Letter of
Warning dated February 6, 2019.
The supervisor was the deciding official to issue Complainant a Letter of Warning dated February
6, 2019 for Failure to Follow Instructions and Irregular Attendance.

2020000811	4
The record contains a copy of the February 6, 2019 Letter of Warning in which the supervisor
placed Complainant on notice that he was absent on the following dates:
November 13, 2018 	2 hours of Leave Without Official Pay (LWOP) (late)
.60 hours of Annual Leave (late)
November 27, 2018 	.17 hours of LWOP (late)
December 24 and 26, 2018 	16 hours of Sick Leave
January 7, 2019 	8 hours of Sick Leave
January 12, 2019 	.25 hours of LWOP (late)
January 14, 2019 	.19 hours LWOP (late)
Total: 27.21 hours
The supervisor stated that during a January 23, 2019 Fact-Finding Investigation, Complainant was
asked to explain his failure to maintain regular attendance. The supervisor stated, however, that
Complainant “could give no acceptable reason for [Complainant’s] failure to follow instructions.
Therefore, I find this disciplinary action warranted. This kind of behavior cannot be condoned.”
The supervisor determined that Complainant violated the following sections of the Employee and
Labor 	Relations 	Manual: 	Section 	511.43 	“Employee 	Responsibilities;” 	Section 	665.15
“Obedience to Orders;” and Section 665.41 “Requirements of Regular Attendance.” Moreover,
the supervisor stated that Complainant’s race was not a factor in her decision to issue him the
February 6, 2019 Letter of Warning.
With regard to his two claims, beyond his bare assertions, Complainant failed to produce any
evidence that the proffered reasons provided by management witnesses for the disputed actions
were a pretext masking discriminatory animus.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record
does not establish that discrimination occurred.

2020000811	5
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).

2020000811	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
October 15, 2020
Date