Adolph P. Avila, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 18, 2007
0120073572 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 18, 2007)

0120073572

10-18-2007

Adolph P. Avila, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Adolph P. Avila,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073572

Agency No. 4F920009007

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the

agency's decision dated July 3, 2007, dismissing his 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as

amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. Upon review, the Commission finds that

complainant's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. In a complaint dated June

19, 2007, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination

on the bases of race (Hispanic), age (D.O.B. 03/17/53), and reprisal

for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, when he was harassed when his supervisor interviewed him

about a confrontation with another employee and the use of profanity;

and when he was threatened with removal.

Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's

race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or religion is

unlawful. McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-1139 (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

[and the Rehabilitation Act] must be determined by looking at all 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, 510 U.S. 17

(1993).

Regarding complainant's claim of reprisal, the Commission has stated

that adverse actions need not qualify as "ultimate employment actions"

or materially affect the terms and conditions of employment to constitute

retaliation. Lindsey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05980410 (Nov. 4, 1999) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915.003

(May 20, 1998)). Instead, the statutory retaliation clauses prohibit

any adverse treatment that is based upon a retaliatory motive and is

reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging

in protected activity. Id.

The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under the

EEOC regulations because complainant failed to show that he suffered harm

or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment

for which there is a remedy. See Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). There is no indication

in the record that any disciplinary action resulted from the incident.

Moreover, the actions complained of, even if assumed to be true, do not

rise to the level of stating a claim of harassment and are not likely

to deter complainant from filing complaints. Accordingly, the agency's

final decision dismissing complainant's complaint is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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), 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 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)

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 (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

October 18, 2007

__________________

Date

2

0120073572

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0120073572