Ashraf H. Abaza, Complainant,v.R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 20, 2007
0120073230 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 20, 2007)

0120073230

11-20-2007

Ashraf H. Abaza, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Ashraf H. Abaza,

Complainant,

v.

R. James Nicholson,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073230

Agency No. 200H-0632-2007102018

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision (FAD) dated June 11, 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. In his

complaint, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination

based on his national origin (Egyptian), religion (Muslim), and reprisal

for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when he was informed on

February 14, 2007, that the VISN Chief Medical Officer directed the Chief

of Staff to conduct an investigation into his mental fitness for duty.

Complainant does not allege that he was scheduled for or subject to a

medical fitness-for-duty examination. Instead, he contends a "secret

examination" investigation occurred or was going to occur regarding his

fitness-for-duty.1

The FAD dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. 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. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme

Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477

U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently

severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's

employment. The Court explained that an "objectively hostile or abusive

work environment [is created when] a reasonable person would find

[it] hostile or abusive" and the complainant subjectively perceives it

as such. Harris, supra at 21-22. Thus, not all claims of harassment

are actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or

inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment,

a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment

to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless

it appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts

in support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief.

The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents

and remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to

the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim.

Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13,

1997).

The Commission has a policy of considering reprisal claims with a

broad view of coverage. See Carroll v. Department of the Army, EEOC

Request No. 05970939 (April 4, 2000). Under Commission policy, claimed

retaliatory actions which can be challenged are not restricted to those

which affect a term or condition of employment. Rather, a complainant

is protected from any discrimination that is reasonably likely to deter

protected activity. See EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation,"

No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998), at 8-15; see also Carroll, supra.

Complainant is alleging, in essence, that management questioned his

fitness-for-duty and secretly investigated it. We find that such

an alleged investigation, in the absence of a claim of attempting to

secure medical information on complainant, does not state a claim nor

rise to the level of actionable harassment. Further, we find it would

not likely deter protected activity. Accordingly, the FAD 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

November 20, 2007

__________________

Date

1 According to the counselor's report, complainant's supervisor maintained

that no investigation into complainant's fitness-for-duty was conducted,

but instead, some in management asked about his mental stability.

??

??

??

??

2

0120073230

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120073230