0120103262
01-27-2011
Andrew Dixon, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.
Andrew Dixon,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120103262
Agency No. 4F-900-0145-10
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's
decision dated July 29, 2010, 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.
BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2010, Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor alleging that he
had been subjected to discrimination and harassment. When the matter
could not be resolved informally, Complainant filed his formal complaint
on July 8, 2010. In his complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the bases of sex
(male), age (50), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under
an EEO statute that was unspecified in the record from April 5, 2010,
and continuing. In support of his claim of harassment, Complainant
indicated that the following events occurred:
1. On several instances from April 2010 through June 2010, Complainant
asked for additional time and overtime to complete his assignments.
A number of his requests were denied;
2. Complainant was given excessive amounts of work which he could not
be completed during his regular work hours;
3. Management would try to provoke him so that Complainant would do
something which would allow management to issue him a disciplinary
action;
4. On May 5, 2010, Complainant was placed on restricted sick leave
status;
5. A remark was made about him being a Christian; and
6. On June 8, 2010, Complainant submitted a form 3996 indicating that his
need for additional time to do his assignment. The Supervisor altered
his form.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)
for failure to state a claim. The Agency indicated that Complainant
failed to show that he was harmed by the alleged events. Further, the
Agency determined that the events, taken as a whole, did not state a
claim of harassment.
Complainant appealed asserting that the Agency has treated him differently
and created a hostile work environment. Complainant noted that he has
been placed on a restricted leave status and was required to substantiate
his leave when he left work early due to a migraine headache. As such,
Complainant asked that the Commission reverse the Agency's decision and
remand the matter for an investigation. The Agency requested that we
affirm its decision to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(1).
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 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. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049
(Apr. 21, 1994). We note that Complainant has some instances in which
he requested overtime which was denied and was placed on restricted sick
leave status resulting in additional requirements in order to receive
sick leave. In such circumstances, we find that Complainant has shown
that he suffered a harm or loss with respect to a term, condition or
privilege of employment. Therefore, we find that the Agency's dismissal
of such claims was not appropriate.
In addition, the Agency dismissed Complainant's claim that he had been
subjected to a hostile work environment. In determining whether a
harassment complaint states a claim in cases where a complainant had
not alleged disparate treatment regarding a specific term, condition,
or privilege of employment, the Commission has repeatedly examined
whether a complainant's harassment claims, when considered together and
assumed to be true, were sufficient to state a hostile or abusive work
environment claim. See Estate of Routson v. National Aeronautics and
Space Admin., EEOC Request No. 05970388 (February 26, 1999).
Consistent with the Commission's policy and practice of determining
whether a complainant's harassment claims are sufficient to state a
hostile or abusive work environment claim, the Commission has repeatedly
found that claims of a few isolated incidents of alleged harassment
usually are not sufficient to state a harassment claim. See Phillips
v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July 12, 1996);
Banks v. Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05940481 (February
16, 1995). Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly found that remarks
or comments unaccompanied by a concrete agency action usually are not
a direct and personal deprivation sufficient to render an individual
aggrieved for the purposes of Title VII. See Backo v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Request No. 05960227 (June 10, 1996); Henry v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Request No.05940695 (February 9, 1995).
In determining whether an objectively hostile or abusive work environment
existed, the trier of fact should consider whether a reasonable
person in the complainant's circumstances would have found the alleged
behavior to be hostile or abusive. Even if harassing conduct produces
no tangible effects, such as psychological injury, a complainant may
assert a Title VII cause of action if the discriminatory conduct was
so severe or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to
employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin.
Rideout v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01933866 (November 22,
1995)(citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22 (1993))
request for reconsideration denied EEOC Request No. 05970995 (May 20,
1999). Also, the trier of fact must consider all of the circumstances,
including the following: 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, 510 U.S. at 23. Upon review
of the record, we find that Complainant has stated events, if taken as
a whole, state a claim of harassment. As such, we determine that the
Agency's dismissal of Complainant's claim of a hostile work environment
was not appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we REVERSE the Agency's
final decision and REMAND the matter for further processing in accordance
with the ORDER below.
ORDER (E0610)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with
29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant
that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue
to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify
Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)
calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter
is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision
within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant's request.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,
DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation,
and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil
Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. 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
January 27, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120103262
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
6
0120103262