0120113857
01-30-2012
Celeste L. Guice, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Celeste L. Guice,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113857
Agency No. 1G-336-0010-11
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's
decision dated July 13, 2011, dismissing her complaint of unlawful
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
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Mailhandler at the Agency’s Processing and Distribution Center
facility in Tampa, Florida.
On June 28, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging
that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race
(African-American), sex (female), color (Black), and reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When it acknowledged receipt of the complaint, the Agency defined the
issue in the complaint as discrimination/retaliation when, on March 21,
2011, Complainant discovered that management had marked her as “deems
desirable”1 for her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) related absences.
The Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. The Agency found that
Complainant had failed to establish that she was aggrieved when she was
placed on the “deems desirable” list without prior notification.
As such, the Agency found that Complainant did not state a viable claim
of discrimination.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee
or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been
discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§
1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has
long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm
or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment
for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC
Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). When the complainant does not
allege he or she is aggrieved within the meaning of the regulations,
the agency shall dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).
In order to review the Agency’s decision to dismiss, the definition
of Complainant’s claim(s) raised in her complaint must first be
addressed. The Agency, in its dismissal decision, has confined the
claim to Complainant’s placement on the “deems desirable” list
without prior notification, requiring medical documentation for her
FMLA absences. However, on appeal, Complainant has submitted a document
entitled “Timeline of Claims Cited,” that details a number of other
incidents that occurred between March and July 2011 in addition to the
“deems desirable” allegation. This timeline suggests that Complainant
is actually raising an allegation of ongoing discriminatory/retaliatory
harassment rather than solely the issue defined by the Agency.
In its response to the appeal, the Agency argues that these other
incidents were not raised in Complainant’s formal complaint. However,
an examination of the formal complaint form reveals that Complainant
specifically referenced her “pre-complaint” when asked to explain
her claim. The pre-complaint EEO Counselor’s report case shows that
in addition to the “deems desirable” issue, Complainant claimed that
during this same time period she was having other difficulties with
her leave, management was not accommodating her medical restrictions,
and she was placed off work. We find that these allegations, raised
during counseling and incorporated by reference in the formal complaint,
directly relate to the timeline submitted on appeal. A fair reading
of these documents together show that the Agency failed to recognize
Complainant’s claim as one of ongoing discriminatory/retaliatory
harassment by management.
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993),
the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank
v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if
it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the
complainant's employment. We find that Complainant has, in fact, raised
a viable claim of ongoing discriminatory/retaliatory harassment, of which
the “deems desirable” allegation is but one example. Therefore,
the Agency erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Accordingly, the Agency’s dismissal is REVERSED and the complaint is
REMANDED to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the
following Order.
ORDER (E0610)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims (ongoing harassment)
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 et seq. The Agency shall
acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the investigative file
and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within one
hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time.
If the Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the
Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt
of Complainant’s request.
A copy of the Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the
Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File A Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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.
Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits
as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
January 30, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record reflects that being marked “deems desirable” means that
medical documentation may be required to support an employee's absences.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120113857
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113857