EEOC Appeal 2020000991

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Estefana M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000991
Agency No. 4G-320-0137-19
DECISION
On October 30, 2019, 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
October 24, 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. 	For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.
BACKGROUND
At 	the 	time 	of 	events 	giving 	rise 	to 	this 	complaint, 	Complainant 	worked 	as 	a 	Sales,
Services/Distribution 	Associate 	(Clerk) 	at 	the 	Agency’s 	Dublin, 	Georgia 	Post 	Office.
Complainant is a Black female. Complainant’s first-line supervisor was a Supervisor, Customer
Services (S1), and her second-line supervisor was the Postmaster (S2).
Complainant’s bid assignment was 6:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break Monday
through 	Friday, 	and 	Saturday 	and 	Sunday 	were 	her 	non-scheduled 	days. 	According 	to
Complainant, if she works on her non-scheduled days, she does not have a set schedule and can
take a 30-minute lunch break. However, Complainant alleged that, beginning in March 2019, S2
told her that she had to take a one-hour lunch break, even on her non-scheduled days.
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.

2020000991	2
According to S2, he learned in March 2019 that some employees were not taking their full lunch
breaks on their non-scheduled days. S2 stated that he instructed the supervisors to inform all
employees that they were required to take their full lunch break every day. S1 stated that, in
March 2019, all employees were instructed to take their full lunch break, including on their non-
scheduled days.
Complainant averred that two white male Custodians (C1 and C2) would work seven hours
without taking a lunch break and would be paid for working eight hours. According to the
record, C1 and C2 had a 30-minute lunch break in their bid assignment, and C1 and C2 took their
30-minute lunch break as scheduled.
Complainant stated that after she was told she needed to take a one-hour lunch break, a black
male clerk (C3) was also told that he needed to take a 60-minute lunch break. According to the
record, C3 did not take a lunch break on the following Saturdays: February 2, 9, 16, 23, and
March 2, 2019; C3 took a 30-minute lunch break on the following Saturdays: March 9, 16, and
23, 2019. S1 averred that C3 was never instructed or permitted to skip his lunch break or take a
30-minute lunch break.
Complainant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on April 18, 2019. On May 28, 2019,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the
bases of race (Black) and sex (female) when, on March 30, 2019, and other dates she has been
required to take a one-hour lunch break on her non-scheduled days.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 	When Complainant did not request a
hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). 	The decision concluded that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
The instant appeal followed.
On appeal, Complainant contends that management did not require the Clerks to take a one-hour
lunch break on their non-scheduled days until she pointed out that C1 and C2 were skipping their
lunch break. Complainant provides copies of clock rings from November and December 2018 to
show days where C1 or C2 did not take a lunch break.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a 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). 	See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review

2020000991	3
“requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal
determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents,
statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the
parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and
its interpretation of the law”).
Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination when, beginning in late March
2019, she was required to take a one-hour lunch break when she worked on her non-scheduled
days. 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). She must generally 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 Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). 	The prima facie
inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the Agency has articulated legitimate
and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. 	See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v.
Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No.
05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination. 	Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley,
supra; Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).
The Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for requiring Complainant to take a one-hour
lunch break on her non-scheduled days is that all employees are required to take their full lunch
break. As evidence of pretext, Complainant alleges that C1, C2, and C3 skipped their lunch
break or took an abbreviated lunch break and that she was not required to take a one-hour lunch
break on her non-scheduled days until after she complained about C1 and C2 skipping their
lunch breaks. Although there is evidence that some employees skipped their lunch break or took
a short lunch break before late March 2019, the preponderance of the evidence in the record
establishes that all employees were required to take their full lunch break after that time.
Complainant has not established that the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for
its actions is a pretext for discrimination based on race and/or sex. Accordingly, Complainant has
not established that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

2020000991	4
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. 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.

2020000991	5
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 11, 2020
Date