05A20143
09-18-2002
Judy M. Leonard, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Judy M. Leonard v. Department of Justice
05A20143
September 18, 2002
.
Judy M. Leonard,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20143
Appeal No. 01A14050
Agency No. P979118
Hearing No. 150-99-8732X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Judy M. Leonard (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Judy M. Leonard v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A14050 (October 2, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the
Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that
the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of
sex (female) and in retaliation for prior EEO activity when she was:
pressured into signing two minimally satisfactory performance entries;
assigned to new work locations;
supervised by persons who had less seniority than she;
assigned odd shifts;
denied three choices of vacation leave;
subjected to inappropriate comments in front of inmates;
told that the Associate Warden referred to her as a blond bimbo; and
denied equal time in Receiving and Discharge.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant addresses only issue
number 7, asserting that because the Associate Warden referred to her as
a �blonde bimbo� she became �the butt of much harassment from supervisors,
coworkers, and inmates� which result in a hostile work environment.
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's
race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or religion
is unlawful, if it is sufficiently patterned or pervasive. Wibstad
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972699 (Aug. 14, 1998)
(citing McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-39 (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). Whether the
harassment is sufficiently severe to trigger a violation of Title VII
must be determined by looking at all of the circumstances, including
the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is
physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and
whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); Enforcement
Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. EEOC Notice No. 915.002
(March 8, 1994) at 3, 6. Harassment is actionable only if the harassment
to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.
Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March
13, 1997). The question of whether allegedly harassing behavior was
�severe or pervasive� is a legal conclusion which we review de novo. Wild
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01984101 (September 8, 2000).
Our review of the record, including complainant's testimony at a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative judge, indicates that the conduct about
which complainant complains was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to
alter the conditions of the complainant's employment. Rather the actions
complainant describes appear to result from interpersonal conflicts that
typically arise in the workplace. When asked by the Administrative
Judge to describe the harassing behavior, Complainant herself seemed
to minimize its severity, replying: �Just stupid little innuendos and
comments, you know, under their breath and, you know, behind your back.�
We conclude that the behavior about which complainant complains did not
rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment.
For the foregoing reasons, it is the decision of the Commission to deny
the request for reconsideration. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A14050
remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the
decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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
September 18, 2002
__________________
Date