[Redacted], Isis S., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 5, 2021Appeal No. 2021001431 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 5, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Isis S.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 2021001431 Agency No. 200H-0542-2020104741 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated November 19, 2020, dismissing 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. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Nurse Practitioner at the Agency’s Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Coatesville, Pennsylvania. On September 25, 2020, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging Agency management subjected her to harassment/a hostile work environment based on her race (Black), as well as reprisal for prior EEO activity, when on June 9 or 11, 2020 (while she was out of the office teleworking), she was unfairly targeted for an office inspection. Complainant contended the investigation involved opening cabinet doors and drawers and was not a typical inspection which would involve what could be seen in the open. Complainant contends her white coworker was not subjected to a similar inspection. Complainant also alleged that she was not provided the opportunity to remedy the cited violations (concerning alleged expired medications and creams) from that inspection before being threatened on June 18, 2020, with a relocation of her office to another building. 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 2020001431 In its November 19, 2020 final decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint dismissed the formal complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), finding Complainant was not aggrieved. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an Agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An Agency shall accept a formal complaint from any 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 or disabling condition. 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. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). 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’.” Here, we note that in her statement submitted on appeal, Complainant concedes that by November 2020, five months after the events at issue, she has not yet been required to move her office. In sum, we agree with the Agency that, viewing the allegations together and assuming they occurred as alleged, Complainant fails to state a viable claim of a discriminatory hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The actions alleged, without more, are simply insufficiently severe or pervasive. In reaching this conclusion, we recognize Complainant has alleged reprisal and the anti- retaliation provisions of the employment discrimination statutes seek to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the statutes’ basic guarantees and are not limited to actions affecting employment terms and conditions. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). Here, however, Complainant has failed to raise allegations that, if proven true, would establish: 1) she was subjected to an action which a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse, and 2) the action could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Id. See also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, No. 915.004 (August 25, 2016); Carroll v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970939 (April 4, 2000). 3 2020001431 On appeal, Complainant, through her representative, stated that while she has not yet been forced to move to another office, “the threat of forcible move from [Complainant’s] office is more akin to the Sword of Damocles, with the threat continuing to dangle over her head, promoting fears that she will again be told she must move immediately, whenever her supervisor requests a meeting for any reason…this concern is a constant source of anxiety for [Complainant].” However, although Complainant claims to have suffered emotional harm as a result of the incident at issue, the Commission has held that allegations that fail to state a claim cannot be converted into a viable claim merely because the complainant asserts emotional. Ulanoff v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950396 (January 26, 1996); Shrader v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01961499 (November 3, 1997). The Agency’s final decision dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. 4 2020001431 An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 April 5, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation