Charles F. Johnson, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 31, 2003
01A22810_r (E.E.O.C. Jul. 31, 2003)

01A22810_r

07-31-2003

Charles F. Johnson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Charles F. Johnson v. United States Postal Service

01A22810

July 31, 2003

.

Charles F. Johnson,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A22810

Agency No. 1-F-908-0026-01

DECISION

Complainant timely appealed to this Commission from the agency's March 26,

2002 dismissal of his employment discrimination complaint for failure to

state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). In his complaint,

complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases

of race (Caucasian), national origin (American), sex (male), religion

(Lutheran), color (white), disability (stress/anxiety), age, and reprisal

for prior EEO activity when on July 7, 2001, complainant observed

a coworker away from his assigned work area creating unnecessary and

intentional intimidation and stalking behavior which complainant reported

to management by certified letters on July 18, 2001. Management failed

to adequately investigate the incident.

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). To state a claim, complainant must allege present harm inflicted

on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability,

or prior protected activity. See Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Where complainant alleges

a hostile work environment, his claim is actionable if it sufficiently

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

See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

In its dismissal, the agency found that complainant suffered no harm to a

term, condition, or privilege of employment as a result of the July 18,

2001 incident. Further, the agency concluded that this single incident

was neither severe or pervasive enough to state a claim of hostile work

environment harassment.

A review of the record reveals that complainant believes the coworker has

engaged in a pattern of harassment since 1998. The agency's review of

the claim as a single incident occurring on July 18, 2001 was improper.

Nonetheless, complainant still fails to state a claim.

Complainant provides no information regarding exactly what the coworker

did on July 18, 2001, but the record contains descriptions of other

incidents. In a March 5, 1999 letter, complainant asserts that while

he was walking through the coworker's work area to attend to his next

assignment, the coworker �suddenly� looked-up from his work and stared

at complainant �with the body language of a bully.� On March 4, 2001,

complainant describes another incident where he was proceeding down aisle

4 to his work unit, and the coworker also was in the aisle, but made no

attempt to avoid complainant. Complainant claims that the worker stared

directly at him, and gave complainant a �taunting� smile.

In response to questions from the EEO Counselor, complainant's manager

described other the altercations between complainant and the coworker.

He notes that the coworker also complained that complainant was

stalking him. He claimed the two were engaged in a �childish game� of

�observing� each other throughout the work day. The manager explains

that these �stalking� incidents consist of things like the March 4,

2001 incident, and one of the two making �noises to get [the other's]

attention� while both were clocking-in. These matters are not severe or

pervasive enough to state a claim of hostile work environment harassment,

even when considered together.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's dismissal 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

July 31, 2003

__________________

Date