01994020
12-12-2001
Eleanore A. Brooks v. United States Postal Service
01994020
December 12, 2001
.
Eleanore A. Brooks,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01994020
Agency No. 1J6031058096
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant
alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases of her disability
(Carpal Tunnel Syndrome), and reprisal for prior EEO activity when on
March 27, 1996, a male co-worker threw paper at her and spoke rudely to
her, and then her supervisor (S1) failed to reprimand him, and instead
said that she was going to give her a suspension (although she did not),
and sent her to Employee Assistance Program (EAP) without explanation.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Distribution Clerk at the agency's South Suburban Processing and
Distribution Center in Bedford Park, Illinois. Believing she was a victim
of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on September 27, 1996. At the conclusion of
the investigation, complainant was informed of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or alternatively,
to receive a final decision by the agency. Complainant requested a
hearing by letter dated August 26, 1998. The AJ subsequently canceled
the hearing on the basis that complainant waived her right to a hearing
by her continued, unjustified noncompliance with Orders issued. The AJ
remanded the complaint to the agency and directed it to issue a final
agency decision (FAD).
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a
prima facie case of disability discrimination noting that she presented
no evidence that any similarly-situated co-worker who is not disabled was
treated more favorably. The agency further concluded that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal in that she failed
to establish a causal connection between her prior EEO activity and the
agency's actions. The agency further noted that complainant failed to
identify the male employee who allegedly harassed her.
Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal. The agency requests
that we affirm its FAD.
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the
employee's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or
religion is unlawful. See McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-1139
(D.C. Cir. 1985). A single incident or group of isolated incidents
will not be regarded as discriminatory harassment unless the conduct is
severe. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982).
The Commission finds that the incident identified in the instant
complaint, even if proven to be true, would not indicate that complainant
has been subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive
to alter the conditions of her employment. See Hollister v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A14822 (November 14, 2001).
In so finding, we note S1's statement in her affidavit that she sent
complainant to EAP because complainant had exhibited some behavior that
made her feel that complainant needed some help that S1 was not equipped
to give her.
Accordingly, we affirm the agency's finding of no discrimination with
respect to the bases of disability and reprisal.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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), 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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)
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.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
December 12, 2001
__________________
Date