Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 12, 2014

0120131450 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 12, 2014)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120131450

Agency No. 4E-640-0098-12

DECISION
Upon review, we find that the Agency’s decision dated January 10, 2013, dismissing
Complainant’s complaint for failure to state a claim is proper pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§1614.107(a)(1).

In her complaint, dated December 13, 2012, Complainant, a Letter Carrier at the Agency’s
Paola Carrier Annex in Paola, Kansas, alleged discrimination based on sex (female) and in
reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) August 27, 2012, her supervisor talked to her in an
aggressive manner; and (2) on August 28, 2012, the supervisor threatened to place her off the
clock for insubordination. The Commission has consistently held that a remark or comment
unaccompanied by concrete action is not a direct and personal deprivation sufficient to render
an individual aggrieved for the purposes of Title VII. Henry v. USPS

, EEOC Request No.
05940695 (February 9, 1995). Here, Complainant indicated that on August 27, 2012, when
she told the supervisor that she was 1 hour and 15 or 20 minutes over, he said “and why is
that? I don’t understand what is taking so long.” Complainant also stated that the next day on
August 28, 2012, despite the supervisor’s threat, she was not actually put off the clock.
Complainant also acknowledged that she was not subjected to any adverse action as result of
the alleged incidents or remarks.
After a review of the record, we find that Complainant was not aggrieved with regard to a
term, condition or privilege of her employment as a result of the alleged remarks. See Diaz v.
Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Although
Complainant claimed that the alleged incidents constituted harassment, the Commission does
not find that the alleged actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
her employment such as to state a claim of harassment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
0120131450

2
510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); Cobb v. Department of the Treasury

, EEOC Request No. 05970077
(March 13, 1997).
Accordingly, the Agency’s decision dismissing Complainant’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

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

(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.
0120131450

3

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

Date
March 12, 2014

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Complainant,

v.

Anthony Foxx,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Motor Carriers),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120131374

Agency No. 2012-24515-FMSCA-03

DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final decision dated January 20, 2013, finding
no discrimination with regard to his complaint. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final order finding of no discrimination.

BACKGROUND
In his complaint, dated May 1, 2012, Complainant, a Safety Investigator, in the Agency’s
Georgia Division Office, Atlanta, Georgia, alleged discrimination based on race/color (black),
age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was placed on a Training Plan
for 60 days effective January 17, 2012. After completion of the investigation of the complaint,
Complainant requested a final Agency decision without a hearing. The Agency thus issued its
final decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action,
which Complainant failed to rebut.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency’s decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions