EEOC Appeal 2020000201

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shawnta A.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000201
Hearing No. 440-2017-00167X
Agency No. 1J-531-0075-16
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 8, 2019, final
order 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 Distribution Operations Supervisor, EAS-
17, at the Agency’s Palatine Processing and Distribution Center in Palatine, Illinois.
On November 5, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency
subjected her to discrimination and discriminatory harassment based on race (Asian Indian),
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.

2020000201	2
national origin (India), sex (female), religion (Hindu), color (brown), disability (knees/Planter
Fasciitis), age (YOB: 1959), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity2 when:
1. 	on September 19, 2016, Complainant’s manager harassed her while on break;
2. 	on September 20, 2016, Complainant’s manager yelled at her and threatened to
call the Postal Inspectors;
3. 	on October 3, 2016, Complainant’s manager physically touched her twice when
she tried to grab her phone from her;
4. 	on October 5, 2016, Complainant was given a pre-disciplinary interview (“PDI”)
and Complainant’s manager would not give her the number to the Postal
Inspectors;
5. 	on October 18, 19, 24, and 31, 2016, and possible other dates to be specified,
Complainant was denied an overtime opportunity;
6. 	on September 22, 2016, Complainant was denied a higher-level detail;
7. 	on November 28, 2016, Complainant’s request for a detail to another tour was
denied;
8. 	on a date(s) to be specified, management insulted Complainant about her physical
disability;
9. 	on a date(s) to be specified, Complainant’s clock rings were changed; and
10. 	on January 7, 2017, Complainant was given PDI concerning answering the radio.
After investigation of the accepted claims, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
timely requested a hearing. 	On August 7, 2017, the Agency filed a motion for summary
judgment and Complainant submitted a response. 	On July 2, 2019, the AJ issued a issued a
decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
In sum, the AJ’s decision noted that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her
to discriminatory harassment based on her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
disability, or prior protected EEO activity. Rather, the AJ found that the record reflected that the
Agency’s actions were based on other factors.
2 The record reflects that Complainant has previously filed several EEO complaints against the
Agency.

2020000201	3
The 	AJ 	incorporated 	by 	reference 	the 	Agency’s 	Motion 	specifying 	the 	legitimate, 	non-
discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the AJ reasoned that the
claims Complainant asserts as harassment reflect instead “management practices directed at
improving operational efficiencies.” 	The AJ noted that management directed Complainant to
follow orders and refrain from disrespectful, unprofessional, and insubordinate conduct. The AJ
further noted that management considered discipline when Complainant failed to follow orders.
Therefore, the AJ determined that the record failed to demonstrate that Complainant had been
subjected to harassment.
On August 8, 2019, the Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding of no
discrimination.
The instant appeal followed. Complainant does not submit any statements or briefs.
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 has not established 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.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision.

2020000201	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.

2020000201	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 14, 2020
Date