0120102847-012103151
11-18-2010
Vicki L. Couch, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Vicki L. Couch,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 0120102847, 0120103151
Hearing Nos. 470-2009-00182X, 470-2010-00123X
Agency Nos. 1C-401-0025-08, 1C-401-0041-09
DECISION
Complainant filed appeals from the Agency's June 16, 2010, and July 20, 2010, final decisions concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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. The Commission accepts the appeals pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decisions.1
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issue presented in both cases is whether Complainant has established that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race, sex, and retaliation.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency's Air Mail Facility Annex in Louisville, Kentucky. She filed two complaints, detailed below, which were accepted for investigation. At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the reports of investigation for each case and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested hearings for both cases but subsequently withdrew her requests. Consequently, the Agency issued final decisions pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
Appeal No. 0120102847
On July 8, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment when:
(1) On April 6, 7, and 8, 2008, Complainant's manager did not take appropriate action after she reported, verbally and in writing, that a co-worker was creating a hostile work environment2;
(2) On April 9, 2008, Complainant became aware that management had not been informed of the hostile work environment;
(3) On April 17, 2008, Complainant became aware that management had not investigated the hostile work environment claim;
(4) On April 21, 2008, Complainant did not pass the Window Service Exam, due to distress from management's disregard of her allegations;
(5) On April 21, 2008, Complainant did not have a job assignment for when she returned to her assigned bid job in the Priority Section;
(6) On April 23, 2008, Complainant was informed that the Inspectors considered her claims to be funny;
(7) On May 10, 2008, Complainant was told that she would be moved out of her work station if she agreed not to request a union steward;
(8) On May 13, 2008, Complainant was informed that an employee can be anywhere on the workroom floor and yell a question across the floor;
(9) On May 14, 2008, Complainant became aware that an EAP Counselor had been out to her facility two weeks earlier and talked to other employees but she had not been informed of the meeting; and
(10) On April 11, 2009, and subsequent dates Complainant was subjected to hostile work environment harassment and although she reported the harassment to management, appropriate action has not been taken.
The Agency's final decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Specifically, the Agency found that, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on race and sex, and reprisal, the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Specifically, the Agency explained that after Complainant told S-1 about the April 6, 2008, incident, S-1 immediately addressed the incident. He questioned C-1. C-1 told him that the incident had never occurred. Nevertheless, S-1 told C-1 to stay away from Complainant. S-1 explained that under the protocol for situations such as that presented by Complainant, management's first step was to ensure that the individuals were separated, establish that no one had been hurt, and question the parties involved. If the statements showed that the allegations were factual, then Labor Relations is called in and a committee was formed to review the matter and possible action was recommended. If the allegations are found not to be factual, no further action is taken. In the instant case, because no evidence was found to support Complainant's claim, no further action was taken.
On April 11, 2008, Complainant complained that a second incident similar to the April 6, 2008, incident had occurred. Complainant again complained to S-1. S-1 informed his superiors and an investigation was initiated and a report was prepared. Following the investigation, which did not substantiate Complainant's claims, an EAP Counselor was called in to talk to both of the parties involved. Complainant called in sick and did not participate in this meeting. The Agency explained that Complainant's concerns were handled in the same manner that all other concerns were addressed in that office. The Agency maintained that Complainant failed to show that other similarly situated employees were treated more favorably and failed to show that she was subjected to reprisal, as her prior EEO activity was too remote in time to establish the necessary nexus. The Agency also maintained that based on these facts, Complainant had failed to show that she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Notwithstanding, the Agency found that even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases, the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency noted that with respect to claims 1 through 3, Complainant's primary concern appears to be that management did not act fast enough in addressing her first claim. The Agency maintained that this matter was handled effectively and in the same manner that all cases were handled in the office.
Moreover, the Agency indicated that the evidence did not support the rest of Complainant's claims, in that, with regard to claims 4 and 5, Complainant had not indicated in any way that she was too stressed to take the window clerk test. The Agency maintained that it was not until after she failed the window test that she mentioned that she was so concerned about management's lack of seriousness regarding the incidents with C-1 that she failed the test. Further, S-1 maintained that he was surprised that Complainant returned to the office following her failed Window Clerk test. As Complainant was not expected to be in the office that day, there was no work for her so therefore, Complainant decided to take annual leave for the remaining hours of the shift.
With respect to claim 6, wherein, Complainant was told that the inspectors found Complainant's situation funny; S-1 admitted that he made the statement but immediately realized that he had delivered this information in an incorrect manner and verbalized this to Complainant.
Regarding claim 7, where on May 10, 2008, Complainant maintained that C-1 moved to an area next to Complainant's and displayed a negative demeanor and made angry gestures, the Agency indicated that while it had not observed any negative behavior by C-1, management asked C-1 to move to another area. C-1 declined to move however, because she maintained that she had not done anything wrong. S-1 told Complainant that C-1 was far enough away from her but if she really felt threatened, Complainant could move to another area. Management maintains that Complainant got very upset and started to create a scene. S-1 asked Complainant to come to his office, at which point she asked for a union steward. No union steward was immediately available, so S-1 told Complainant that he would order C-1 to move if Complainant would forgo her request for a union steward. Complainant agreed and C-1 was moved.
With regard to claim 8, the Agency indicated that it did tell Complainant that all employees had a right to be anywhere on the workroom floor. The Agency maintained however, that this information was not shouted across the workroom floor.
Further, with regard to claim 9, the Agency contends that Complainant was aware of the EAP Counselor's visit because she initially scheduled the appointment. The Agency indicated that she did not meet with the EAP Counselor because she called in sick the day of the appointment so the EAP Counselor spoke only with C-1. Two weeks later when the EAP Counselor returned, Complainant refused to meet with him because she claimed that she was too upset. Finally, with regard to claim 10, management was not aware that there had been an incident on April 11, 2009, because she did not notify the supervisor on duty at the time. However, S-1 investigated C-1's claim that Complainant entered the break room and turned down the volume of the television without asking. S-1 explained that he went to the break room and Complainant told him that she had asked everyone in the room before lowering the volume. S-1 found the volume of the television to be adequate so he took no further action.
The Agency contends that Complainant has not provided any evidence which suggests that her claims were not adequately considered or that the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. Moreover, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The Agency explained that while Complainant may have been subjectively afraid of C-1, under the reasonable person standard, C-1's conduct was not sufficiently objectively offensive or frequent enough to constitute harassment. Further, with respect to Complainant's argument that management's investigation of the incidents, and the manner and timing of the investigation was not fast enough or thorough enough, the Agency maintained Complainant's dislike of the process does not establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The Agency explained that its investigation disclosed that there was no basis to Complainant's allegations. Therefore, there is no basis for imputing liability to the employer.
Appeal No. 0120103151
In a complaint filed October 5, 2009, Complainant alleged that based on her race, sex, and retaliation, she was subjected to harassment when:
(1) On May 12, 2009, management accessed and released confidential medical information without her consent; and
(2) On May 27, 2009, she was subjected to a verbal and physical attack and threatening conduct from a coworker, and management failed to take appropriate action when she reported the incident.
Complainant maintained that on approximately May 12, 2009, the Health & Resource Management Specialist and the Manager, Health & Resource Management, shared and circulated false and confidential medical information regarding Complainant. Specifically, Complainant asserted that forms were forwarded to her supervisor regarding her Worker's Compensation claim. On April 23, 2009, Complainant submitted a Form CA-2, Notice of Occupational Disease and Claim for Compensation, claiming stress and anxiety due to harassment from coworkers and a March 19, 2009, incident that caused her to go to the doctor. Complainant maintains that a Hearing Loss medical form was sent to her supervisor. As background, Complainant, in the summer of 2008, had missed work due to an ear infection. Complainant contends that this information was in her file and was leaked to her supervisor. The Health & Resource Management Specialist then forwarded a form entitled "Psychiatric Illness" to her supervisor. On May 8, 2009, Complainant sent a letter requesting a corrected CA-35 checklist for her workers' compensation case. On the following day, Complainant submitted a letter objecting to the Form CA-35G relating to psychiatric illness instead of work related stress and anxiety. Complainant maintained that because of these forms, the coworkers directly associated with her supervisor referred to her as "Psycho Bitch."
With respect to claim two, Complainant alleged that on May 27, 2009, management failed to take appropriate action when she reported that a white male coworker intentionally bumped into her. Complainant maintains that the coworker bumped her with his shoulder. Complainant indicated that she initially did not complain about this incident. Shortly afterwards however, Complainant's supervisor was asking employees for their tee shirt size and when he reached Complainant she told him, "I don't give a damn about no tee shirt." Complainant maintains that her supervisor looked at her with a puzzled expression as she walked away. Later in the day, Complainant decided to report the shoulder bumping incident to her supervisor. She asked him to help her with something on the concourse in order to be close to the coworker's work area. She then yelled at the coworker that he should never bump into her again. The coworker responded that he had not bumped her but that she had bumped him. Complainant maintained that she called him a liar and swore at him and she made sure that he and the supervisor heard. Following this confrontation, Complainant's supervisor asked her to write a statement about the incident but Complainant refused, stating that she was tired of writing statements. She indicated however, that the supervisor needed to let everyone know that she would no longer allow people to bump into her.
Complainant maintains that later that day, she continued to work but was still upset. She noticed a female coworker leaving the belt whenever Complainant left the belt. Complainant maintained that she believed that the female coworker was doing this in order to provoke her. Complainant then noticed that a male coworker moved his work area next to her. Complainant thought that this coworker had come to her area in order to make trouble. Complainant and the male coworker then got into a verbal altercation. Complainant asserts that the coworker motioned to strike her. Complainant called the police and thereafter decided to go home because she felt light-headed. Complainant was placed on medical leave from May 27, 2009, until September 30, 2009, because she believed that the working environment was harmful to her health.
The Agency's final decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Specifically, the agency indicated that assuming that Complainant established a prima facie case as to all bases, the agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency explained that Complainant's Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP) claim was handled in the same manner as all other claims. The agency maintained that initially Complainant was sent the wrong checklist which indicated that the injury complained of involved a hearing loss. However, the Human Resource Office maintained that the checklist is used only to assist employees in preparing their OWCP claim and the form did not contain any medical information. The Agency indicated that when it was notified that it sent the wrong form it immediately sent the correct form to Complainant. The Agency contends that no medical information regarding Complainant was distributed in any way. Further, Complainant's supervisor contends that no medical information was shared with him and maintains that Complainant provided medical information directly to the Department of Labor.
With respect to claim two, the Agency maintained that management immediately conducted an investigation regarding Complainant being bumped by a coworker and the incident that ensued with the male coworker. The Agency maintained that no action was taken towards any employee because the coworker claimed that Complainant had bumped him and, as substantiated with respect to all witness statements gathered, Complainant initiated the verbal altercation that occurred that same day. The Agency maintained that Complainant failed to show that its articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons are pretext for discrimination.
Further, the Agency maintained that Complainant failed to show that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment. The Agency indicated that Complainant failed to show that the actions between her and her coworkers had anything to do with her race, sex, or prior EEO activity. Moreover, the Agency asserted that, assuming arguendo that Complainant was elbowed in passing and was subjected to a verbal assault by a coworker, the evidence shows that as soon as she reported the incident, management took prompt appropriate action. Further, the Agency noted that it was Complainant's conduct on the workroom floor that was harassing to employees. Complainant displayed verbal abuse toward numerous employees by cursing and using remarks that could be considered harassment. The Agency maintained that the incidents complained of, even if considered in totality, were not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant requests that her cases be considered together. She contends that the record will show that she has continuously been subjected to a hostile work environment. Complainant also maintains that while each case must be looked at individually, complaints of harassment made by the men in her office have been treated more favorably.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Appeal No. 0120102847
Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For Complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). Once complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency is successful, the burden reverts back to the complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reason(s) for its action was a pretext for discrimination. At all times, complainant retains the burden of persuasion, and it is her obligation to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993); U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-16 (1983).
We note that Complainant alleged reprisal for prior EEO activity. A complainant may establish a prima facie case of reprisal by showing that: (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity; (2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently, he or she was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment. E.g., Whitmire v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (Sept. 25, 2000).
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses on whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Washington v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also Aikens, 460 U.S. at 714-17.
To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. �1604.11. The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). Further, the incidents must have been "sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of complainant's employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998). In the case of harassment by a supervisor, complainant must also show that there is a basis for imputing liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that, even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on race, sex, and retaliation, the Agency has articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Specifically, the Agency explained that with respect to claims 1 through 3, once Complainant reported the incident with C-1 to S-1, Complainant had reported the incident to management. The Agency indicated that it was the policy of the office to handle matters at the lowest level possible. In this case, S-1 spoke with C-1 about the incident and C-1 denied that anything had happened. S-1 told C-1 to stay away from Complainant and assumed that the matter was closed. After Complainant reported the April 11, incident, the matter was elevated to a third-level supervisor and the matter was investigated. The investigation showed that C-1 had made no physical movement towards Complainant. Therefore, management concluded that there was no basis in fact to support the Complainant's allegations and took no further action.
With regard to claim 4, the Agency indicated that Complainant had been given a week to train for her window clerk test and during that time she never claimed that she was in distress or was stressed out.
Regarding claim 5, the Agency explained that Complainant returned to the workroom floor after failing the window clerk test. Complainant was not scheduled to work that day, because it was believed that she would have passed the test and therefore she would have started training for the window clerk position. Complainant therefore was allowed to take annual leave and return to work the next day as was scheduled.
With regard to claim 6, management admits that Complainant was told that investigators considered her complaint to be funny, but maintains that the misstatement was immediately corrected.
With regard to claim 7, because there was a low volume of mail, employees were not assigned to particular jobs or work locations. Complainant alleged that C-1, set up her work station next to Complainant in order that C-1 could intimidate Complainant. Management explained that while it had not viewed C-1 behaving in an inappropriate manner, it ultimately moved C-1 to a different location.
Regarding claim 8, management admits that it did tell Complainant that employees had the right to be anywhere on the workroom floor, but maintains that S-1 did not shout that information across the workroom floor.
Regarding claim 9, the Agency notes that Complainant was aware of the EAP Counselor's visit, because she had scheduled it herself, subsequently took sick leave, missing the appointment, and refused to meet with the EAP Counselor on a second occasion.
Finally, with regard to claim 10, management maintained that it investigated the incident that C-1 reported and found it to be without merit. S-1 found that the matter was minor and not threatening and did not deserve any further attention.
With respect to Complainant's contention on appeal that the complaints of male employees are handled more efficiently and taken more seriously than female employees, we find that Complainant's argument is not supported by the record. We find that Complainant has not presented any evidence of similarly situated incidents were similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably than female employees. We find that other than Complainant's conclusory statements, she has failed to present any evidence which suggests that discriminatory animus based on her race, sex, or prior EEO activity was involved in this case. We find that Complainant has failed to show that the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Appeal No. 0120103151
The Commission finds that, even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases in this case, the Agency articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, namely, that with respect to issue 1, while the wrong form was sent to Complainant, there was no evidence presented which suggested that Complainant's medical information was incorrectly released. The Agency explained that the Worker's Compensation forms are kept in the same drawer and the form regarding hearing loss was right next to the form for psychiatric illness claims. The Agency maintained that as soon as this mistake was identified, Complainant was sent the correct check list.
Further, with regard to Complainant being bumped and the verbal altercation that followed, the agency maintained that it investigated Complainant's claims and found them to be unwarranted. The evidence showed that there were no witnesses regarding the shoulder bump, there was no evidence presented which supported Complainant's allegation that the female employee was taking actions to annoy Complainant and further, the evidence shows that Complainant initiated the verbal altercation with the male coworker. The Commission finds that other than Complainant's conclusory statements that she was discriminated against, she presented no evidence which suggested that discriminatory animus was involved.
Finally, we conclude that when evaluating all of Complainant's claims of harassment together, we find that Complainant has not demonstrated that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The Commission finds these incidents even when viewed collectively are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of complainant's employment and create an abusive working environment. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 23 U.S. 75 (1998). Moreover, we find that because the Agency's actions were not motivated by Complainant's prior protected activity, Complainant cannot establish a claim of discriminatory harassment.
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 decisions.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
____11/18/10______________
Date
1 In the interest of administrative economy, Complainant's appeals are consolidated for a decision.
2On April 6, 2008, Complainant complained to her immediate supervisor (S-1) that a coworker (C-1), a Black female walked towards her and looked at Complainant "in a threatening manner."
??
??
??
??
2
0120102847
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120102847