0120172502
10-06-2017
Harry A,1 Complainant, v. Robert M. Speer, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Harry A,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert M. Speer,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120172502
Agency No. ARANAD17FEB00521
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated June 22, 2017, dismissing his complaint alleging 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mechanic at the Agency's Army Depot facility in Anniston, Alabama.
On April 26, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of race (Black), color (light-skinned), disability, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when he was subjected to harassment. In support of his claim of harassment, Complainant asserted the following events occurred:
1. On January 24, 2017, Complainant's coworker (CW1) ran over his foot causing injury to his ankle and Complainant felt that management has not done anything about it.
2. On August 22, 2016, Complainant alleged that he was told by another coworker (CW2) that the Supervisor told him that he needed to go and come from breaks on time - to not sit down and smoke but come right back to work because the Supervisor could not get Complainant if CW2 was doing the same thing.
3. On August 2, 2016, Complainant stated that he was told by CW2 that the Supervisor told him he was not helping him get Complainant by coming back from break late.
4. On July 31, 2016, Complainant stated that every time he went outside to smoke, the Supervisor followed him.
5. On January 28, 2015, Complainant alleged that the Supervisor told Complainant that he could not pick up another mop because he didn't like the way the floor looked after Complainant mopped.
6. On December 16, 2014, Complainant alleged that when he went outside to smoke and the Supervisor came outside where he was smoking and told him to put the cigarette out immediately and go back to work.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim.2 The Agency found that the events alleged by Complainant were not sufficient to state a cognizable claim of harassment. Therefore, the Agency dismissed the complaint.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a complaint from an 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, disabling condition, genetic information, or reprisal. 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. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). If complainant cannot establish that he is aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
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. Thus, not all claims of harassment are actionable. As noted by the Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998): "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the 'terms and conditions of employment'." Following a review of the record, we find that in the instant case, viewing the allegations together and assuming they occurred as alleged, Complainant fails to state a viable claim of a discriminatory hostile work environment. The actions alleged, without more, are simply insufficiently severe or pervasive to state a valid hostile work environment claim.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
October 6, 2017
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 We note that the Agency's first final decision listed the basis for dismissal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5). However, the analysis was clearly based on 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. Subsequently, the Agency issued a corrected final decision dismissing the complaint as a whole for failure to state a claim citing the correct regulation.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120172502
2
0120172502