0120120647
04-20-2012
William J. Ryan, Complainant, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
William J. Ryan,
Complainant,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120120647
Agency No. P20050357
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's September 2, 2011 final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Forensic Psychologist at the Agency's Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York, New York. On November 30, 2005, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to hostile workplace discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (male), age (50), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when: in May 2004, he was forced to move out of his office on the seventh floor and was required to take a drug test.1
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a final decision within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f).
In its final decision, the Agency found no discrimination. The Agency determined that, even if Complainant could establish a prima facie case, management had recited legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Management stated that Complainant's office was moved from the 7th floor to the 2nd floor of its facility in order to place all the doctors on the same floor. Complainant's supervisor, who is the Chief Psychologist, stated that the Psychology department at the MCC was located on the 2nd floor and patients were treated on that floor. She further stated that Complainant was moved to the 2nd floor to facilitate his job. Complainant's supervisor explained that Complainant treated his patients on the 2nd floor and it made more sense to have him located there with the other psychologists. She stated that Complainant was offered an office on the 7th floor in 2005 or 2006, but he declined to move. As for the drug test, management stated that this was a random drug test administered by its Central Office in Washington, D.C.; Complainant was not identified for this test by local Agency officials. Complainant's supervisor stated that employees are periodically given random drug tests by the Central Office, which identifies which employees will be tested. She added that the determination of which employees are tested was not "generated from the [MCC]."
In conclusion, the Agency found that the events of which Complainant complains, either individually or collectively fail to rise to the level of unlawful harassment prohibited by the ADEA or Title VII. Most importantly, there is no evidence that any of the actions or decisions of Agency management were motivated by unlawful reasons. Complainant failed to establish that any of management's reasons for its actions were pretextual or unworthy of belief. Complainant failed to establish discrimination under either the theory of disparate treatment or unlawful harassment. Complainant proffers no statement on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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 EEOC Management Directive 110, 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").
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion or prior EEO activity 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)); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3, 9 (March 8, 1994). In determining that a working environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the alleged discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and if it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); Enforcement Guidance at 6. The Supreme Court has stated that: "Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile work environment - an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive - is beyond Title VII's purview." Harris, 510 U.S. at 22 (1993).
To establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he 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 his statutorily protected class; (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; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance at 6.
An employer is subject to vicarious liability for harassment when it is "created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee." Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 2270 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2292-93 (1998). When the harassment does not result in a tangible employment action being taken against the employee, the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability. The agency can meet this defense, which is subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, by demonstrating: (a) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behavior; and (b) that appellant unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the agency or to avoid harm otherwise. Burlington Industries, Inc., v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. at 2270; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. at 2293; Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999). This defense is not available when the harassment results in a tangible employment action (e.g., a discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment) being taken against the employee.
Here, Complainant asserted that based on his statutorily protected classes, management continuously subjected him to a hostile work environment. However, we find that Complainant has not shown that he was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving his protected classes, or the harassment complained of was based on his statutorily protected classes. Further, Complainant has not shown that the purported harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. While Complainant has cited various incidents where Agency management took actions that were either adverse or disruptive to him, we find that Complainant fails to show that these incidents were as a result of unlawful discrimination. To the extent Complainant is alleging disparate treatment with respect to his claims, he has not shown that the Agency's reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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
April 20, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The Agency dismissed two claims for failure to state a claim. We affirm the dismissal of those claims.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120120647
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120120647