01962208
10-01-1998
Valerie Analla, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Areas), Agency.
Valerie Analla v. United States Postal Service
01962208
October 1, 1998
Valerie Analla, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01962208
) Agency No. 4-F-913-1020-94
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 340-94-3545X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western Areas), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On January 15, 1996, Valerie Analla (appellant) timely filed an appeal
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission or the
EEOC) from a final decision of the Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service (Pacific/Western Areas) (the agency). The final decision
concerns appellant's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint,
alleging discrimination based on sex (female) and age (DOB 11/16/42)
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is
accepted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of EEOC
Order No. 960.001.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether appellant was discriminated against on the bases stated above
when, between September 15 and October 8, 1993, she was subjected to
sexual and non-sexual harassment by the Postmaster.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Appellant submits contentions on appeal which have been reviewed and
considered by the Commission.
BACKGROUND
Appellant filed this formal EEO complaint on December 1, 1993, alleging
discrimination as set forth in the above-entitled statement, "Issue
Presented." Following an investigation of this complaint, the agency
informed appellant that she could request either an EEOC administrative
hearing or a final agency decision (FAD) based on the existing record.
Appellant requested an EEOC hearing which was held on July 18 and 19,
1995. On November 3, 1995, the EEOC administrative judge (AJ) issued a
recommended decision (RD), which found no discrimination. On December
27, 1995, the agency issued its FAD, which also found no discrimination.
Appellant now appeals the FAD.
Regarding appellant's sexual harassment claim, the AJ found that the
alleged discriminating official's (ADO's) behavior did not rise to the
level of sexual harassment under Title VII. The AJ first noted that
appellant did not make a claim of quid quo pro sexual harassment,
then stated that appellant's claim was in the nature of hostile
environment sexual harassment. The AJ stated that while the ADO's
behavior was unprofessional and inappropriate it did not constitute
conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter appellant's work
environment. The AJ noted that many of the problems appellant experienced
with the ADO appear to have arisen out of appellant's successful challenge
to the ADO's authority. The AJ observed that appellant did not advise the
ADO, or anyone else, that the conduct was offensive until well after she
filed her EEO complaint. Finally, the AJ noted that higher authorities
took appropriate action to investigate the matter after being told of
the ADO's alleged conduct.
With respect to appellant's allegation of harassment based on sex and age,
the AJ determined that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case.
In this regard, the AJ concluded that appellant was not singled out by
the ADO for negative treatment; that the ADO's conduct towards all of his
employees had been unprofessional and counterproductive to an effective
work environment. The AJ noted that many of appellant's problems with
the ADO stemmed from her insistence that she be allowed to take annual
leave and that appellant had worked for the ADO for almost two years
without any complaints about his behavior.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed the record, consisting of the investigative
report and exhibits, the hearing transcript, the RD, the FAD, and
appellant's statement on appeal. The Commission concludes that the AJ
accurately set forth the facts giving rise to the complaint and the
law applicable to the case. The Commission further concludes that
the AJ correctly determined that appellant had not established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency discriminated against her
as alleged in her complaint. In so finding, the Commission particularly
notes that it agrees with with the AJ's conclusion that the ADO's
behavior, while apparently inappropriate and unprofessional, did not
rise to the level of harassment protected under Title VII and the ADEA.
Accordingly, the Commission herein adopts the AJ's recommended findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing
reasons, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
to AFFIRM the agency's final decision and find that appellant has failed
to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was discriminated
against as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Oct 1, 1998
________ _________________________
DATE Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat