0120141780
09-23-2014
Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120141780
Agency No. 136588802359
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated March 17, 2014, 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Aircraft Painter at the Agency's Naval Air Station, North Island facility in San Diego, California.
On September 13, 2013, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on May 23, 2013, he was sent an email from the manager of an employee he represents in an EEO matter. Complainant viewed the email as cautioning him not to proceed in his representational duties involving the EEO complaint of the employee.
The Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. The instant appeal followed.
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. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
However, the anti-retaliation provisions of the employment discrimination statutes seek to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the statutes' basic guarantees, and are not limited to actions affecting employment terms and conditions. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). To state a viable claim of retaliation, complainant must allege that: 1) s/he was subjected to an action which a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse, and 2) the action could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Id. While trivial harms would not satisfy the initial prong of this inquiry, the significance of the act of alleged retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances. See also EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998) (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 states a claim).
The record reflects that on May 23, 2013, Complainant sent an email titled, "Undocumented maintenance." In the email, addressed to the manager of an EEO complainant he was representing, Complainant explained undocumented maintenance on an aircraft to "the blade fold/unfold control unit connecting cannon plug in the center console." He went on to explain how the maintenance was performed and asked the manager to "please consider investigating the above mentioned undocumented event." In the email, Complainant included the name of the person whom he was representing in an EEO matter in the "cc" field. Complainant made no mention of any EEO matters.
In response to the email, the manager thanked Complainant for his concerns regarding the "undocumented maintenance," but informed him that he (Complainant) was not a part of the program (chain of command) and/or the union representative for the area where the undocumented maintenance allegedly occurred. The manager stated that if the employee Complainant represented had concerns about such, he should raise it with his supervisor and take it up the chain of command. The manager stated that he realized and agreed that it was a safety issue, and anyone can report safety issues, but noted there was a chain of command. The manager stated that he needed to have the opportunity to fix any issues before going out of the program with maintenance issues.
Even examining these emails in the light most favorable to Complainant, we find that there is no mention of any EEO matters in either the message sent by Complainant or in the response he received. Rather the entire topic appears to be undocumented maintenance and the need to report it up the chain of command. As such we do not find that his claim states a viable claim of reprisal.
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
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
September 23, 2014
__________________
Date
2
0120141780
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120141780