MOTION FOR DECISION

XXX

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

XXX  DISTRICT OFFICE

 

_______________________________

XXX,                                          )  EEOC Docket No.XXX

Complainant,                                )  Agency No. XXX

  1. )

)

XXX,                                        )COMPLAINANT’S OPPOSITION TO

Postmaster General, United                  )AGENCY’S MOTION FOR DECISION

States Postal Service,                             )WITHOUT A HEARING

Agency.                                     )

_______________________________

 

 

 

NOW COMES XXX, Complainant, and files this Opposition to Agency’s Motion for Decision Without a Hearing, and for cause would show this Honorable Commission as follows:

 

  1. COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL UNDISPUTED FACTS
  2. Complainant’s allegations revolve around a workplace situation marred by harassment, favoritism, and misconduct.
  3. She recounts instances of inappropriate behavior by her supervisor, Brian Ivory.
  4. One such incident involved Ivory making a sexually suggestive comment, saying “you make my pussy wet.”
  5. Complainant believes that even one instance of such behavior is enough to constitute harassment, particularly considering Ivory’s position as the boss of her bosses.
  6. Complainant also criticizes Ivory’s lack of experience in running an office, which she attributes to Richard Madrid’s decision-making.
  7. Madrid chose Ivory over potentially more qualified female or gay candidates. Ivory’s tendency to deflect questions by stating he had three supervisors who should be approached instead added to the toxic work environment.
    Complainant describes subtle advances from Ivory, which became more apparent during a conversation about becoming a 204b (a supervisor role).
  8. She claims that Ivory orchestrated a fake search for a package in a mailroom, likely aware of the presence of cameras.
  9. Despite maintaining a pleasant demeanor, Complainant alleges that Ivory made a comment about “WAP” and proceeded to dance and sing around her desk, creating a highly uncomfortable situation.
    Issues with pay and discipline are also highlighted.
  10. Complainant asserts that Ivory had control over her pay, frequently changing his desired pay adjustments until Blair arrived to address the office’s problems.
  11. She mentions a demand to repay three days of leave taken in February, which Complainant contested through a hearing.
  12. Additionally, Complainant accuses Ed Barzee, allegedly an ally of Ivory, of being promoted to supervisor despite documented incidents of screaming, reports to postal inspectors, and alleged harassment.
    The narrative continues with mentions of two EEO mediations.
  13. The first mediation focused on Complainant’s request to become a 204b and Ivory’s alleged comment about WAP.
  14. However, the mediation was abruptly cut short, leaving Complainant feeling disrespected. The second mediation questioned whether Ivory had found a missing parcel during his visit to Complainant’s route.
  15. Complainant believes that supervisors, rather than managers like Ivory, typically handle such matters.
    Complainant raises concerns about promotions and suggests an age-related bias.
  16. She points out several male managers, ranging in age from 23 to 50, who allegedly engaged in workplace misconduct and favored male employees.
  17. Complainant feels that younger male employees were promoted over women and gay individuals, resulting in a toxic environment and a biased workplace.
    Personal circumstances come into play as Complainant’s ex-husband, XXX, fell ill with COVID-19.
  18. Complainant had to take absences from work to care for Tony and her child from his second marriage.
  19. Complainant believes that Tony’s manager unlawfully told him to retire and failed to provide adequate support during his illness.
  20. On [Insert Date], one of Complainant’s supervisors, Mary, refused to help Complainant with the parcel of a problem customer. Refusal to help Complainant knowing well the limit she can carry is a form of harassment.
  21. Carriers usually rely on management when issues arise, for instance if a vehicle breaks down or a carrier encounters an angry customer.
  22. Complainant received no support from staff or management whenver issues arose. Pictures of parcels by were left by other employees to ridicule and harass Complainant regarding her 25lb weight lifting restriction.
  23. One of the attached pictures have the word “Mary” written on them. She never addressed that problem that Complainant encountered.
  24. In terms of desired relief, Complainant seeks equal opportunities, the reinstatement of her leave, and monetary compensation for the alleged misconduct and harassment she endured.
  25. She plans to present evidence, including denied leave slips, photos of the toxic environment, texts, and statements demonstrating Ivory’s pattern of denying legitimate leave requests.

 

  1. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR DECISION WITHOUT A HEARING

 

  1. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing upon finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g).
  2. EEOC’s decision without a hearingregulation follows the summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
  3. The U.S. Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. XXX.
  4. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249.
  5. At the summary judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255.
  6. A “genuine issue of fact” is one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for the non-moving party. XXX. A “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.
  7. An AJ may issue a decision without a hearing only after determining that the record has been adequately developed. See XXX.
  8. Issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate for a case that can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence. If the non-moving party “has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition,” then a decision without a hearing is inappropriate. XXX.
  9. The Complainant has provided compelling evidence in support of her claims, which she has attached to this Opposition. Upon review of the photographic evidence submitted by the Complainant, it becomes evident that there are substantial grounds to believe that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment within the workplace.
  10. Granting the Agency’s Motion for Decision Without a Hearing without giving the Complainant an opportunity to present her evidence would be a grave miscarriage of justice. It would deprive her of the fundamental right to due process and deny her the chance to demonstrate the extent of the discrimination she endured.
  11. A hearing is crucial in this case to allow the Complainant to present her evidence and provide a comprehensive account of the alleged discriminatory actions she experienced. Without a hearing, the perpetrators of discrimination may go unpunished, evading accountability for their actions and perpetuating a culture of discrimination within the workplace.
  12. It is essential that the Administrative Judge (AJ) acknowledges the necessity of providing the non-moving party with a fair opportunity to engage in sufficient discovery to respond to the Agency’s motion for a decision without a hearing. This will enable the Complainant to gather additional evidence, if needed, and effectively counter the Agency’s arguments.
  13. By granting a hearing, the AJ would ensure that the principles of due process are upheld, fostering a fair and impartial adjudication process. The Complainant should have the right to present her case, challenge the opposing party’s assertions, and present any additional evidence that may further substantiate her claims.
  14. Moreover, a hearing would allow the AJ to carefully evaluate the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties. The Complainant’s evidence, including the attached photographs, should not be dismissed without a thorough examination and consideration.
  15. Only through a hearing can the AJ assess the strength and validity of the evidence and make an informed decision based on the facts presented.
  16. Furthermore, a decision without a hearing could potentially create a chilling effect on future complainants who might hesitate to come forward with their grievances. If individuals believe that their claims will not be heard and that evidence will not be properly evaluated, they may be discouraged from seeking justice and reporting instances of discrimination.
  17. In conclusion, denying the Complainant a hearing would not only undermine her right to due process but also risk perpetuating a culture of discrimination within the workplace.
  18. Granting the Agency’s Motion for Decision Without a Hearing without affording the Complainant the opportunity to present her evidence would be unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness and impartiality.
  19. It is imperative that the AJ enables the Complainant to engage in sufficient discovery and presents her case in a hearing to ensure a just and equitable resolution to this matter.

 

  1. ARGUMENT

The Complaint is not defective

  1. The actions taken by the Complainant are not defective, considering the numerous facts presented. The allegations revolve around a workplace situation that is clearly marred by harassment, favoritism, and misconduct. It is important to address each fact individually to understand the gravity of the situation.
  2. Firstly, the Complainant recounts instances of inappropriate behavior by her supervisor, Brian Ivory. One such incident involved Ivory making a sexually suggestive comment, which is completely unacceptable in a professional setting. Even one instance of such behavior is enough to constitute harassment, especially considering Ivory’s position as the boss of her bosses.
  3. Furthermore, the Complainant criticizes Ivory’s lack of experience in running an office, which she attributes to Richard Madrid’s decision-making. It is concerning that Madrid chose Ivory over potentially more qualified candidates, especially considering Ivory’s tendency to deflect questions and create a toxic work environment.
  4. The Complainant describes subtle advances from Ivory, which became more apparent during a conversation about becoming a supervisor. Additionally, Ivory orchestrated a fake search for a package in a mailroom, likely aware of the presence of cameras. Such manipulative actions demonstrate a clear abuse of power.
  5. Issues with pay and discipline are also highlighted. The Complainant asserts that Ivory had control over her pay, frequently changing his desired pay adjustments until the matter was addressed by someone else. Moreover, she mentions a demand to repay leave taken in February, which she contested through a hearing. These instances raise concerns about fair treatment and proper procedures within the workplace.
  6. The Complainant also accuses Ed Barzee, allegedly an ally of Ivory, of being promoted to supervisor despite documented incidents of screaming, reports to postal inspectors, and alleged harassment. This suggests a problematic promotion system that overlooks misconduct and fails to provide a safe working environment.
  7. Two EEO mediations were conducted, with the first focusing on the Complainant’s request to become a supervisor and Ivory’s alleged comment about a popular song. However, the mediation was abruptly cut short, leaving the Complainant feeling disrespected. The second mediation questioned whether Ivory had found a missing parcel during his visit to the Complainant’s route, raising concerns about proper handling of such matters.
  8. Complainant raises concerns about promotions and suggests an age-related bias. The allegation that younger male employees were promoted over women and gay individuals creates a toxic environment and implies a biased workplace. This is a serious issue that requires attention and rectification.
  9. Personal circumstances are also relevant to the Complainant’s situation. Her ex-husband fell ill with COVID-19, requiring her to take absences from work to care for him and her child. The allegation that Tony’s manager unlawfully told him to retire and failed to provide adequate support during his illness further highlights a lack of compassion and support from management.
  10. Additionally, the Complainant mentions instances where she received no support from staff or management when issues arose. Refusal to help her with a problem customer, leaving pictures of parcels to ridicule and harass her regarding her weight lifting restriction, and the lack of response from Mary, one of her supervisors, all contribute to a hostile work environment.
  11. In terms of desired relief, the Complainant seeks equal opportunities, the reinstatement of her leave, and monetary compensation for the alleged misconduct and harassment she endured. The evidence she plans to present, including denied leave slips, photos of the toxic environment, texts, and statements demonstrating Ivory’s pattern of denying legitimate leave requests, further support her claims.
  12. Considering the accumulation of these facts, it is evident that the Complainant’s actions are justified. The workplace situation she describes is plagued by harassment, favoritism, and misconduct, and it is essential that her allegations are thoroughly investigated and addressed to ensure a safe and fair working environment for all employees.

 

The Complainant has Established a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination

  1. The Complainant has successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination based on the facts presented. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, four elements need to be demonstrated: (1) the Complainant is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position or benefit in question, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination.
  2. Firstly, the Complainant’s membership in a protected class can be inferred based on her allegations. Although not explicitly stated, references to favoritism, harassment, and biased promotions suggest potential discrimination based on gender, age, and sexual orientation. Discrimination based on these protected characteristics is prohibited by law, and the Complainant’s claims indicate a potential violation in this regard.
  3. Secondly, the Complainant’s qualifications for the position are evident. She mentions her desire to become a supervisor (204b) and highlights instances where she was denied opportunities for promotion. These instances imply that she possessed the necessary qualifications for the desired positions, but discriminatory practices prevented her advancement.
  4. Thirdly, the Complainant suffered adverse employment actions. She experienced harassment, including instances of inappropriate comments and behavior from her supervisor, Brian Ivory. Additionally, she faced difficulties regarding pay adjustments, denied leave, and a hostile work environment. These adverse actions collectively contribute to the harm she endured in the workplace.
  5. Finally, the circumstances outlined by the Complainant give rise to an inference of discrimination. She provides specific instances of inappropriate behavior, favoritism, and biased promotions. The fact that she was subjected to these actions while other employees, particularly male employees, allegedly engaged in similar misconduct and received preferential treatment implies discriminatory practices within the workplace.
  6. Moreover, the Complainant raises concerns about management’s handling of her complaints and the lack of support she received. These factors further contribute to the inference of discrimination, as they suggest a systemic issue that perpetuates an unequal and biased work environment.
  7. In conclusion, the Complainant has successfully established a prima facie case of discrimination. She belongs to a protected class, was qualified for positions of advancement, suffered adverse employment actions, and presented circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. These factors warrant a thorough investigation into the alleged discriminatory practices within the workplace and the appropriate remedies to address the Complainant’s claims.

 

The Complainant Has Established a Prima Facie Case of Retaliatory Discrimination

  1. The Complainant has established a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination based on the facts presented. To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination, four elements need to be demonstrated: (1) the Complainant engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer took adverse action against the Complainant, (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action, and (4) there is evidence to suggest that the adverse action was motivated by retaliation.
  2. Firstly, the Complainant engaged in protected activity by raising concerns and making complaints about workplace misconduct, favoritism, and harassment. She participated in two EEO mediations, where she addressed issues related to her desire to become a supervisor and allegations of inappropriate comments by her supervisor, Brian Ivory. By engaging in these protected activities, the Complainant exercised her rights under the law.
  3. Secondly, the Complainant experienced adverse actions following her engagement in protected activity. She faced instances of harassment, inappropriate comments, denial of leave, biased promotions, and a hostile work environment. These adverse actions demonstrate the harm she endured as a result of her complaints and raise concerns about potential retaliation.
  4. Thirdly, there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse actions. The adverse actions occurred after the Complainant engaged in protected activity, such as raising complaints and participating in EEO mediations. The timing and sequence of events suggest a link between her protected activity and the subsequent adverse actions she faced.
  5. Lastly, there is evidence to suggest that the adverse actions were motivated by retaliation. The Complainant highlights instances where she faced increased harassment, denial of leave, biased promotions, and a hostile work environment immediately following her engagement in protected activity. These actions imply that her complaints and participation in the EEO process triggered a negative response from her supervisors and created a retaliatory environment.

 

Actions of Perpetrators Were Based on Discriminatory Reasons

  1. The actions of the perpetrators, as described by the Complainant, indicate that they were motivated by discriminatory reasons. Several factors contribute to this argument, highlighting potential bias based on gender, age, and sexual orientation.
  2. Firstly, the Complainant’s allegations include instances of inappropriate behavior, harassment, and favoritism. One such incident involved her supervisor, Brian Ivory, making a sexually suggestive comment, creating a hostile work environment. This behavior, targeted specifically at the Complainant, suggests that gender-based discrimination may be at play.
  3. Furthermore, the Complainant criticizes Ivory’s lack of experience in running an office and highlights Richard Madrid’s decision to choose Ivory over potentially more qualified female or gay candidates. This decision, coupled with Ivory’s deflective attitude and creation of a toxic work environment, raises concerns of potential bias in the hiring and promotion processes based on gender and sexual orientation.
  4. The Complainant also raises issues regarding promotions and suggests an age-related bias. She points out several instances where younger male employees were promoted over women and gay individuals, resulting in a biased workplace. These allegations, if proven, indicate discriminatory practices based on age and gender.
  5. Additionally, the Complainant accuses Ed Barzee, allegedly an ally of Ivory, of being promoted to a supervisor position despite documented incidents of screaming, reports to postal inspectors, and alleged harassment. This suggests that decisions regarding promotions were influenced by personal connections and potentially discriminatory motives, rather than objective evaluation of qualifications.
  6. The Complainant’s allegations also highlight instances where she received no support from staff or management when issues arose. Refusal to help her with a problem customer and the harassment she faced regarding her weight lifting restriction indicate a lack of empathy and support, potentially stemming from biased attitudes.
  7. Considering the cumulative evidence, it is reasonable to argue that the perpetrators’ actions were based on discriminatory reasons. The Complainant’s allegations indicate a pattern of inappropriate behavior, favoritism, biased promotions, and a lack of support, which collectively suggest that gender, age, and sexual orientation may have played a role in these discriminatory actions.

 

  1. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Complainant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to DENY Agency’s Motion for Decision Without a Hearing.

 

Dated this ____ day of June, XXX.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

______________________________

XXX,

Complainant in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )