EEOC Appeal 2020001545

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Crysta T.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001545
Hearing No. 520-2019-000361X
Agency No. 1B-113-0014-18
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 October 30, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler, PS 04 at the Agency’s
Queens New York Processing and Distribution Center in Flushing, New York.
On August 15, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency
subjected her to discriminatory harassment based on national origin (Virgin Islands), sex
(female), color (black), disability (high blood pressure, right knee injury, fibroids, and anxiety),
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.

2020001545	2
age (YOB: 1973), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (Complainant filed prior EEO
complaints) when:
2. 	on November 8, 2017, Complainant was subjected to insults and false allegations
from management, and she was required to perform all work assignments without
assistance;
3. 	on November 14, 2017, management stated in a loud tone, “I’ll pray for you;”
5. 	beginning in November of 2017 through January of 2018, Complainant was required
to load and unload trucks on the platform without assistance, and perform other work
duties with only one employee assisting;
6. 	beginning in April of 2018, Complainant was required to perform work task(s)
without assistance;
7. 	beginning on or about April 18, 2018, Complainant was harassed by a co-worker and
management did not address the issue; and
8. 	on or about May of 2018, management discussed and shared her medical information.
After the investigation of the accepted claims, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of
the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative (AJ) or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence.
Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her hearing request.
On October 30, 2019, the Agency issued the instant final decision, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. 2
The instant appeal followed.
2 The record indicates that Complainant’s formal complaint included three additional claims
which were dismissed by the Agency on procedural grounds. On appeal, Complainant does not
dispute the dismissal of these claims. Therefore, we need not address these claims further in our
decision.

2020001545	3
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Disparate Treatment – Claims 5 and 6
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).
Complainant testified that she was diagnosed with fibroids in November 2013, high blood
pressure in November 2014, anxiety in October 2015, and a knee condition in November 2017.
Complainant indicated that management was aware of her high blood pressure as she had
indicated that she had this condition in a prior grievance filed in May 2017. 	However,
Complainant acknowledged that she did not disclose her anxiety condition to management and
she only informed one management official of her fibroids on a date unspecified.
Complainant stated that she did not have any work restrictions from these conditions. 	Instead,
Complainant indicated that she was unable to timely complete her duties when she was assigned
work without a partner. However, Complainant indicated that her personal limitations included
the need for less stress due to her high blood pressure, no prolonged standing or driving due to
her right knee condition, and sitting when she had fibroid issues.3
3 We presume for purposes of analysis only, and without so finding, that Complainant is an
individual with a disability.

2020001545	4
Our review of the record indicates that the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions.
Claims 5 and 6 – Required to Load Trucks Without Assistance
Complainant testified that she required to load and unload trucks without assistance on various
dates and she was only provided an assistant on specific dates to complete these duties.
Complainant identified several supervisors (“S1,” “S2,” and “S3”) and her manager (“M1”) as
the responsible management officials during the periods at issue.
S1, S2 and M1 testified that employees were required to load and unload trucks, but they were
not required to complete these tasks with assistance. 	Additionally, the management officials
indicated that the 110/Collection Platform (Tour 1) Complainant was assigned was too small to
have more than three employees using sidewinders. 	The management officials also explained
that the number of employees assigned to Tour 1 varied because the assignment was based on
mail volume. S2, in particular, denied that Complainant was rushed or disciplined due to lack of
work performance. 	Moreover, S1c testified that Complainant never worked the entire shift by
herself because there were one or two other employees working on the platform with her. 	S3
clarified that Complainant would periodically work alone while other employees assigned to
Tour 1 were on break or were at lunch. 	Moreover, the management officials did not indicate
having knowledge of any work restrictions for Complainant.
Although all management officials except S1a indicated that they were aware of Complainant’s
prior EEO activity, all management officials denied that Complainant’s prior EEO activity
factored into her assignment on the 110/Collection Platform.
After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that neither during the investigation, nor
on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered
reasons 	for 	the 	disputed 	actions 	were 	a 	pretext 	for 	unlawful 	discrimination 	based 	on
Complainant’s National origin, sex, color, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity.
Consequently, Complainant’s claim of discriminatory harassment in 	claims 5 and 6 are
precluded based on our findings that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken
by the Agency were motivated by her National origin, sex, color, disability, age, and in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity. 	See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No.
019982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
Harassment: Claims 2, 3, 7, and 84
To establish a claim of discriminatory environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1)
she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of
4 Complainant’s affidavit did not address claims 7 and 8.

2020001545	5
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. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.
1982).
In other words, 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 basis – in this case, her national origin, sex, color, disability, age, and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements
– hostility and motive – will the question of Agency liability present itself.
We find that Complainant has failed to indicate that the Agency subjected her to discriminatory
harassment for the remaining claims at issue.
Claim 2 – Insults and False Claims by Management
Complainant testified that she asked S1 for help and informed S1 that she was working in an
unsafe work environment because there were post cons, hampers, and empty equipment, and
bulk mail all on the work floor. However, Complainant explained that S1 yelled at her, did not
listen to her, and called M1, who also refused to listen to Complainant. Complainant stated that
she was required on November 8, 2017 to work alone from 3am – 4am, although Complainant
indicated 	that 	she 	was 	uncertain 	whether 	S1 	was 	aware 	that 	she 	was 	working 	alone.
Nevertheless, Complainant indicated that she filed a hazard report and claimed that S1 falsely
told M1 that she did not work alone and that she refused work.
Complainant further indicated that M1 kept screaming, “You do not want to work,” and
instructed S1 to send Complainant home. Complainant stated that she felt stressed, weak, dizzy,
and she felt her blood pressure rising from the incident and S1 later found her the bathroom.
Subsequently, Complainant indicated that she requested medical attention, but the Manager of
Distribution Operations (“MDO”) stated, “Ambulance for what?” and “if your condition is not
work-related we are not responsible to pay!” 	Complainant then stated that she responded that
she had high blood pressure and she had her own health insurance.
S1 testified that she did not remember the claim at issue. S1 indicated that she and Complainant
“worked well together” and S1a indicated that she was unaware that Complainant had a medical
condition. Regarding Complainant working alone, S1 stated that all employees work alone when
riding because only one truck can be loaded at a time.
Additionally, M1 denied yelling at Complainant and denied sending Complainant home early on
the date at issue. M1 further indicates that she was unaware whether Complainant was required
to work alone from 3 am to 4 am.

2020001545	6
The MDO acknowledged that he was aware of Complainant’s prior complaints because she had
previously named him as a responsible management official even though he stated that he had no
involvement with her claims. The MDO corroborated Complainant’s testimony that he informed
Complainant that the Agency would not cover the cost of her ambulance because she was not
injured on the job. 	The MDO explained that five times that year, Complainant had a habit of
saying she did not feel well or going home/hospital when she was asked to perform an
assignment, or when she did not get along with her co-workers. Given these past circumstances,
the MDO therefore wanted to make sure that Complainant knew that she would be responsible
for the ambulance cost.
Claim 3 – “I’ll pray for you” Statement”
Complainant testified that a supervisor (“S4”) initially assigned a co-worker to work with her,
but later reassigned the co-worker to another area. Complainant indicated that she informed S4
that it was unfair for Complainant work by herself and Complainant stated that she informed S4
that she had high blood pressure. However, S4 responded by telling Complainant that she (S4)
also had high blood pressure and that she would pray for Complainant. 	Complainant asserted
that S4 later reported the incident to her management team, and Complainant was questioned by
S1 about what happened.
S4 denied that she told Complainant that she would pray for her after Complainant informed her
of medical condition. S4 also indicated that she was unaware of any work restrictions for
Complainant as she had not received any medical document to support a work restriction. S4
further indicated that Complainant’s work duties were to load, and unload trucks and these duties
were to be performed independently. S4 clarified that the 110/Collection Platform Complainant
(Tour 1) was assigned was the smallest platform and it had fewer trips which resulted in a
variance of working needs on Tour.
Claim 7 – Co-worker Harassment
S2 acknowledged that Complainant had reported that she was being harassed by another co-
worker (“CW1”). 	However, S2 explained that both Complainant and CW1 were having issues
with each other which and both individuals needed a “sit down.” S2 further explained that a sit
down occurred between CW1 and Complainant and management tried to resolve the issue but
could not do so, because Complainant went out on medical leave.
Another supervisor (“S5”) testified that Complainant had indicated that she was being harassed
on April 18, 2018, but Complainant left the office and went out on sick leave on April 20, 2018
before statements could be collected from her and CW1.
The MDO indicated that Complainant had reported to M1 that she had been harassed by co-
worker. The MDO stated that management investigated the matter but found no basis for
Complainant’s claims.

2020001545	7
The record also contains testimony from CW1’s manager who stated that she instructed CW1 not
to contact Complainant, either the day of or day after, she had received a report claiming that
CW1 was harassing Complainant. CW1’s manager stated that she followed up with CW1 a week
later and CW1 indicated that there were no issues.
Claim 8 – Sharing of Medical Information
S2 confirmed that Complainant provided another co-worker (“CW2”) a medical record which
CW2 delivered to S2. 	S2 clarified that the document she received did not state any medical
conditions and that Complainant herself had given her own personal information to another
employee. 	S2 acknowledged that she informed Complainant that she had received the medical
record, 	but 	S2 	could 	not 	remember 	what 	was 	also 	discussed 	during 	this 	conversation.
Additionally, S2 denied sharing Complainant’s medical information
Considering these claims, even if true, Complainant has not shown evidence that considerations
of national origin, sex, color, disability, age, or retaliatory animus motivated management’s
actions towards Complainant. The record reflects that Complainant admitted that she was
uncertain whether S1a knew that she was working alone. 	Nevertheless, S1 explained that
employees worked alone because only one truck can be loaded at a time. The record also reflects
that the MDO indicated that Complainant had a habit of wanting to go home or go to the hospital
when she was assigned work. 	Consequently, the MDO wanted Complainant to understand that
she would incur a cost for an ambulance since she did not have a work-related injury.
Additionally, S4 denied telling Complainant that she would pray for her, and the record reflects
that the Agency investigated Complainant’s co-worker harassment, but the findings of the
investigation did not support her claim. Finally, the record reflects that Complainant herself had
shared her personal information with a co-worker.
Beyond her bare assertions, there is no evidence that the disputed actions were motivated in any
way by Complainant’s protected groups. 	As such, her claim of discriminatory harassment is
precluded. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
Moreover, these incidents Complainant alleges are not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to
constitute hostile work environment/harassment under Commission regulation. 	The incidents
involved are of a type that typically arise out of ordinary workplace conflicts or communications.
However, EEO laws are not a civility code. 	Rather, they forbid “only behavior so objectively
offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” 	Oncale, 523 U.S. 75, 81
(1998).
After careful review of the record, including Complainant's contentions on appeal, we find that
Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency discriminated against her as alleged.

2020001545	8
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 (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).

2020001545	9
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