01975894
08-04-1999
Charmae Taliaferro, Appellant, v. William M. Daley, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.
Charmae Taliaferro, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01975894
v. ) Agency No. 96-63-0387
)
William M. Daley, )
Secretary, )
Department of Commerce, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
Appellant alleges that she was retaliated against in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when:
(1) she learned on August 9, 1996, that management did not inform her
of database project meetings;
(2) between July 15, 1996, and July 22, 1996, management denied her
access to database software being considered for the database project;
(3) since August 8, 1996, she has been denied recognition for software
drafts of the new database; and
(4) on August 13, 1996, she was relegated to the role of a secretary
rather than chief contact person for the database project.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED as CLARIFIED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed
as an Information Assistant in the Customer Liaison Office, Communications
Directorate in the Census Bureau. Believing she was discriminated against
as referenced above, appellant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a complaint on September 20, 1996. At the conclusion of the
investigation, appellant requested that the agency issue a final decision.
The FAD concluded that although appellant established a prima facie
case of retaliation, she failed to present evidence that the agency's
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were a pretext
for retaliation. It is from this decision appellant now appeals.
Appellant offers no new contentions on appeal. The agency requests that
we affirm its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 222
(1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation cases), we
disagree with the agency that appellant demonstrated a prima facie case
of retaliation. In reaching this conclusion, we note that appellant
participated in prior EEO activity and that her second line supervisor,
who played a prominent role in all four of the allegations, was aware of
appellant's prior EEO activity. However, we find that appellant fails
to establish how she was adversely affected by management's actions.
Specifically, regarding appellant's first allegation, the agency states
that appellant was invited to all meetings which were appropriate for her
job duties. Appellant proffers no evidence as to why she was entitled to
attend higher level management meetings like the one that took place
on August 9, 1996. Regarding her second allegation, the evidence
establishes that appellant was the very first person in the Customer
Liaison Office to get a copy of the database software at issue, and
there is no evidence that the timing of its installation prejudiced her
in any way. Regarding appellant's third allegation, appellant's second
line supervisor testified that appellant is not a computer programmer
and was never asked to develop software drafts for the new database.
Accordingly, we find that appellant was not entitled to recognition
for a project she was neither qualified for, nor asked to undertake.
Finally, regarding the fourth allegation, the evidence establishes that
appellant misunderstood what role she was to play in the database project.
Appellant believed herself to be the �chief contact person� from her
office, but, in fact, her first line supervisor was the �chief contact
person,� and appellant was appointed to the database project to lend
technical and administrative support consistent with her job description.
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, including appellant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we conclude that appellant
failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and we AFFIRM
the FAD as CLARIFIED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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 the decision.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive the decision. To ensure that your civil action is
considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS from the date that you receive the decision or to consult an attorney
concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your
action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:
August 4, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations