01990040
11-30-2000
Dawn M. Castillo, Complainant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Dawn M. Castillo v. Social Security Administration
01990040
November 30. 2000
.
Dawn M. Castillo,
Complainant,
v.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01990040
Agency No. 98-0571-SSA
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).<1>
In a complaint dated July 9, 1998, complainant claims that she was
subjected to harassment due to a hostile work environment, based
on religion and sex. In its decision dismissing the complaint, the
agency sets forth the following incidents as evidence of complainant's
harassment claim:
On March 19, 1998, a co-worker informed complainant that a supervisor
made a false statement about her during a unit meeting;
On May 27, 1998, a supervisor revealed confidential information during a
meeting when she disclosed that four employees had filed EEO complaints
and that she (the supervisor) discussed the complaints with an EEO
Counselor; and,
On June 12, 1998, a supervisor ordered complainant to read her e-mail,
and threatened her with disciplinary action if she failed to do so.
Review of the record discloses that in addition to the above incidents,
complainant also claims that because of her sex and religion, she was
shunned by her supervisor and ostracized by her co-workers. As evidence,
complainant indicates that these individuals routinely exclude her
by having lunch together and speaking Spanish in her presence; and,
that her immediate supervisor does not speak to her in the mornings.
On appeal, complainant further argues that the supervisor's statement
about the four EEO complaints, as identified in claim 2, creates a
�chilling effect� on the EEO process.
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 because even if proven to be true, the incidents
described by complainant, considered together, are not sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Moreover,
the complaint does not otherwise challenge an unlawful employment policy
or practice. See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, Request No. 05970077
(March 13, 1997).
Regarding claim 2 and complainant's contention of a �chilling effect� on
the use of the EEO process, the Commission determines that complainant
fails to produce any evidence that the statement at issue actually
deterred her or her co-workers from engaging in the EEO process.
Furthermore, it does not appear that complainant was involved in any
manner in the four referenced EEO complaints. Accordingly, we conclude
complainant failed to state a claim regarding claim 2.
However, the Commission reminds the agency that restraint of or
interference with an individual's protected EEO activity is prohibited
by Title VII. See also 29 C.F.R. �1614.103(a). Accordingly, the
Commission cautions the agency against engaging in acts or making
statements which give the appearance of interference with the EEO process
or might have a "chilling effect" on an individual's right to challenge
alleged discrimination.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the agency's final decision
dismissing complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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 30, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.