EEOC Appeal 2020000675

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Cheryll K.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000675
Hearing No. 480-2017-00648X
Agency No. 4X-048-0017-15
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 August 22, 2019, final
order 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., 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. 	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 worked as a Customer Care Agent
at the Agency’s facility in Los Angeles, California. On January 26, 2015, Complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of her race (White
Egyptian Lebanese), color (white), disability, age (59), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when on November 7, 2014, management removed her from her position.
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.

2020000675	2
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). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ
assigned to the case found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on August 19, 2019, finding
no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final 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). 	The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a
decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth
in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary
judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary
standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s
function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for
trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment
stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. 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 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the
outcome of the case. 	If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not
appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. 	In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination that
the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. 	Petty v. Defense Security
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision without a hearing was
appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. 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). Complainant must initially establish a
prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action under
circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v.
Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of
the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13. The burden then shifts to the
Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).

2020000675	3
To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133
(2000).
Here, we concur with the AJ’s finding that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima
facie case of discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, the record shows that between May 6, 2014, and August 15,
2014, Complainant had at least 18 unscheduled absences or late arrivals to work for which she
failed to provide adequate justification. As such, management issued her a notice of removal,
effective November 7, 2014, for failure to maintain assigned work schedule. The notice states that
Complainant was given an investigative interview on August 26, 2014, in order to explain the
absences and tardiness, however her responses were found unacceptable and the “chronic tardiness
to your assigned work schedule and your numerous unscheduled absences [were found to be]
excessive.” We note that the record shows that prior to issuing Complainant the notice of removal,
she had already received numerous discussions and several suspensions as the result of her poor
attendance. We concur with the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s
articulated reasons for her removal were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, there are no
genuine issues of material fact. We further find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without
a hearing finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ’s decision
and the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
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).

2020000675	4
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).
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.

2020000675	5
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 1, 2020
Date