EEOC Appeal 2020000542

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Trevor S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000542
Hearing No. 570-2017-00540X
Agency No. 4V-711-0003-16
DECISION
On September 6, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s September 12, 2019 final action 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Lead Automotive Technician at the Agency’s
Largo Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in Largo, Maryland.
On November 9, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), color (dark skinned), and in
reprisal for prior EEO activity (Agency Nos. 4K-200-0110-14 and 4K-200-0088-12)) when, on or
about July 19, 2016, he was notified that he was not selected for the position of Supervisor at the
Washington D.C. Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF).
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.

2020000542	2
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the investigative file, and
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to
the case issued a Notice of Proposed Summary Judgment on May 8, 2018. The record reflects that
neither the Agency nor Complainant responded to the Notice of Proposed Summary Judgment.
On September 5, 2019, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency ,
finding no discrimination. The Agency thereafter issued the instant final action implementing the
AJ’s decision.
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).
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 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.
In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during
the investigation established the following undisputed facts.
During the relevant period Complainant was a Lead Automotive Technician at the Agency’s Largo
VMF.
The Manager, Capital Vehicle Maintenance (African-American, black) stated that she did not have
a supervisory and/or managerial relationship with Complainant during the relevant period. 	She
stated that she was the selecting official for the position of Supervisor at the Washington D.C.
VMF, while the Manager, Vehicle Operations was the concurring official.

2020000542	3
The selecting official explained that the criteria that were outlined in the Internal Publication
Announcement included the duties and responsibilities of the subject position, and Knowledge,
Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) required to successfully perform the essential functions of the subject
position. 	The selecting official further stated that she based her decision on all information
collected, including her independent review of the candidates’ resumes and responses given during
the interviews.
The selecting official stated that she chose the selectee (African-American) because she was
deemed best qualified. Specifically, the selecting official explained that the selectee’s application
addressed the KSAs and demonstrated her ability to successfully perform in the position, focused
on the specific requirements of the position, and described her experience to show how that
experience related directly to successfully performing in the position. The selecting official further
noted that during her interview, the selectee “sufficiently described her experience and provided
examples of how that experience related to the expected duties and responsibilities of the vacant
position.”
The selecting official stated that she did not select Complainant for the subject position because
he was not deemed the best qualified candidate for the subject position compared to the selectee,
based on his resume and responses during his interview. 	She noted that Complainant failed to
appear for the interview as scheduled, which resulted in the rescheduling of his interviews.
Moreover, the selecting official stated that Complainant’s race, color and prior protected activity
were not factors in her decision to select the selectee for the subject position.
The Manager, Vehicle Operations (Caucasian, white) was the concurring official regarding the
position of Supervisor at the Washington, D.C. VMF. 	He stated that the selecting official made
her selection “based on the needs of the VMF that she manages. [Selecting official] knows what
is needed to best run her operation and because of that, I approved her selection.”
In sum, after careful consideration of all Complainant’s allegations and the evidence of record,
there is adequate support the AJ’s determination that the responsible management officials clearly
articulated 	legitimate, 	non-discriminatory reasons 	for 	the 	non-selection. 	Beyond 	his 	bare
assertions, Complainant has simply provided no evidence to support his claim that his treatment
was the result of his race, color or prior protected activity.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final action, implementing the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding
no discrimination.2
2 We note that in response to Complainant’s appeal, the Agency argued that Complainant’s appeal
should be dismissed because it was untimely filed. Because we affirm the Agency’s final action
adopting the AJ’s finding of no discrimination, we find it unnecessary to address alternative
dismissal grounds (i.e. untimely appeal).

2020000542	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.

2020000542	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 17, 2020
Date