0120083705
11-14-2008
Cynthia V. Jefferson, Complainant, v. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Cynthia V. Jefferson,
Complainant,
v.
Mary E. Peters,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120083705
Agency No. 200821999NHTSA02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
decision dated July 25, 2008, dismissing her 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.
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 April 22, 2008, complainant alleged that she was
subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American),
sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when (1) she received a telework
letter and her co-worker was tasked to tell her that she must call in on
telework days; (2) when her supervisor gave her a note saying there was
concern about her inter-office communications; (3) when since September
2007 her name was removed from OST mailing lists and all pertinent work
assignments.1
The Agency dismissed claims 1 and 2 for failure to state a claim. The
Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under the EEOC
regulations because complainant failed to show that she 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). Moreover, to the extent
complainant is claiming a discriminatory hostile work environment, we find
that the events described, even if proven to be true, would not indicate
that complainant has been subjected to harassment that was sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. See Cobb
v. Department of the Treasury, Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997).
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. We find the acts complained of do not state
a viable claim of reprisal.
Finally, the agency dismissed claim 3 for failure to contact an EEO
counselor in a timely manner. Complainant was aware of the issues as
early as November 2006 but did not raise them with the counselor until
March 14, 2008. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1) requires
that complaints of discrimination should be brought to the attention
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45)
days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the
case of a personnel action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective
date of the action. The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion"
standard (as opposed to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine
when the forty-five (45) day limitation period is triggered. See Howard
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999).
Thus, the time limitation is not triggered until a complainant reasonably
suspects discrimination, but before all the facts that support a charge
of discrimination have become apparent. Given the facts of this case,
the Commission finds that complainant's EEO counselor contact on this
issue was untimely. The Commission also notes that complainant did not
raise this issue with the EEO counselor, rather she added it to her
formal complaint.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's
complaint is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
November 14, 2008
__________________
Date
1 The Commission notes that complainant filed another complaint in
2007 dealing with her demotion, which complainant appealed to the Merit
Systems Protection Board. As such, those claims are not before us.
??
??
??
??
2
0120083705
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120083705