Latest Quarterly Edition Includes Selected Notable 2015 Decisions

Press Release – January 11, 2016

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the latest edition of its federal sector Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law, which is available online. The Digest now includes hyperlinks so that stakeholders can easily access the full decisions which have been summarized. This quarterly publication, prepared by EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO), features a wide variety of recent Commission decisions and federal court cases of interest. The current edition also includes a special year-end selection of notable EEOC decisions for fiscal year 2015 (which ended Sept. 30, 2015).

“The Digest is required reading for the federal sector EEO community,” said OFO Director Carlton M. Hadden. “The latest issue highlights important 2015 case decisions which are reflective of the Commission’s appellate review program and instructive for our stakeholders.”

This edition of the Digest contains summaries of noteworthy decisions issued by EEOC, including cases involving: agency processing, mixed motive, attorneys’ fees, official time, class complaints, remedies, compensatory damages, sanctions, dismissals, settlement agreements, stating a claim, summary judgment and timeliness.

The summaries are neither intended to be exhaustive or definitive as to the selected subject matter, nor are they to be given the legal weight of case law in citations. In addition to the quarterly Digest, Commission federal sector decisions are available on EEOC’s website.

The public may also receive federal sector information updates and news items via Twitter: @EEOC_OFO.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination in the public and private sectors. Further information about EEOC is available online at www.eeoc.gov.

Here are some of the cases cited:

Union-related claims – Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142489 (October 23, 2014) (the claim involved an issue relating to union representation and was a collateral attack on a separate forum which should be raised within the grievance process); Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142170 (October 29, 2014) (Agency properly dismissed complaint alleging that Complainant was not included in a settlement agreement with the union.  An issue relating to a union settlement agreement constituted a collateral attack on a separate forum and Complainant should raise the matter within the grievance process); Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142298 (December 5, 2014) (Complainant’s allegations concerning actions of the union vice president in his union role towards her as a fellow union officer do not state a claim and were properly dismissed.  None of the alleged events directly related to a term, condition or privilege of Complainant’s employment and Complainant did not name any Agency management officials.  In addition, Complainant’s allegations concerning criminal charges brought against her constituted a collateral attack on another proceeding and should be raised within the criminal court system); Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120150140 (February 23, 2015) (Complainant’s claim that he lost a position in a union election allegedly due to posters on display at the worksite did not allege a loss or harm to a term, condition or privilege of employment, and was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim); Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120151326 (July 10, 2015) (collateral attacks to other administrative proceedings were not cognizable, and Complainant should raise her concerns with the grievance determination within the grievance process itself, and not through the EEO process).

Disability Discrimination Found.  In 2010, Complainant admitted to the Agency that she altered her pay stub so that she could receive additional state benefits.  Complainant was later terminated for “Improper Conduct” resulting from her actions.  Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to disability-based discrimination when she was issued the termination.  Following a hearing, the AJ issued a final decision finding discrimination, and the Commission affirmed the decision on appeal.  The Agency did not contest the AJ’s finding that Complainant was a qualified individual with a disability.  Further, the AJ found Complainant to be credible and management was aware of her disability.  The record showed that two co-workers also engaged in financial fraud and were not removed from the Agency, and the Plant Manager testified that he intended to reduce the co-workers’ proposed removals to 14 day suspensions.  The Plant Manager was inconsistent in his reasons for issuing the Notice of Removal to Complainant as compared to the co-workers, and the evidence simply did not support some of his stated reasons.  The Agency was ordered, among other things, to reinstate Complainant, with appropriate back pay, and delete all references to the removal action from her personnel records.  Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720140025 (September 28, 2015).

Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Found.  Complainant was off work following a work-related injury, and returned with a five-pound lifting restriction, and well as other limitations.  Approximately four months later, Complainant was told to go home because her limitations prevented her from performing her mail processing duties, namely lifting 10-pound trays, and the Plant Manager was concerned she would reinjure herself.  Complainant stated that she was able to perform her duties and nothing in the record disputed this assertion.  On appeal, the Commission found that Complainant was substantially limited in the major life activity of lifting because she was unable to lift more than five pounds for a period of six months or more. The Commission further found that Complainant was able to perform her mail processing duties by splitting her trays of mail.  Moreover, the Commission found that the Agency failed to establish a direct threat defense because the Plant Manager’s concern was based on his subjective interpretation without the benefit of an individualized assessment.  Therefore, the Commission concluded that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability by failing to reasonably accommodate her.  The Agency was ordered, among other things, to return Complainant to her Mail Processing position and pay her appropriate back pay and attorney’s fees.  Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120113802 (September 18, 2015)

Retaliation Found When Agency Posted Complainant’s EEO Information in a Public Place.  While the Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding of no discrimination with regard to the majority of issues raised in Complainant’s complaint, the Commission stated that Complainant alleged, and management did not deny, that a supervisor placed a note on her time card indicating that she had an EEO appointment.  Complainant stated that the note was placed in a public space and could be seen by co-workers.  The Commission rejected the Agency’s contention that this did not constitute reprisal because Complainant had not shown that other employees saw the note.  Instead, the Commission concluded that placing information about Complainant’s EEO activity in such a public, exposed place was inappropriate and could have revealed her EEO activity to numerous other employees.  Consequently, the Commission found that the supervisor’s conduct was reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in EEO activity, and therefore violated Title VII’s prohibition on retaliation.  The relief ordered included investigation of Complainant’s claim for compensatory damages, and training for the responsible management official.  Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120133300 (May 12, 2015).