EEOC Appeal 2020000117

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Sharon P.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000117
Hearing No. 510-2018-00020X
Agency No. 1G-336-0060-17
DECISION
Complainant 	appeals 	to 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s August 8, 2019 final order
concerning her 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 finding no discrimination.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Custodian, P-04, at the Agency’s Seminole Processing and Distribution Center in Orlando,
Florida.
On June 27, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency
on the bases of race (Hispanic) and sex (female) when on or about March 8, 2017, she was
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.

2020000117	2
removed from being #1 on the Promotion Eligibility Register and subsequently denied the
Maintenance Support position.
After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). 	Complainant requested a hearing. 	The Agency submitted a motion for a decision
without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the
Agency.
The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 	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 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). 	A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the
outcome of the case. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and
factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on
a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that
an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision
itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify,
with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting
evidence and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. 	Such a
dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that
the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor
of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’
arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the
evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision finding no
discrimination.

2020000117	3
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).

2020000117	4
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 29, 2020
Date