Donald C. Burton, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 5, 1999
01991565_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 5, 1999)

01991565_r

11-05-1999

Donald C. Burton, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Donald C. Burton, )

Appellant, )

)

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01991565

) Agency No. 1D-272-0032-98

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On December 15, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal of a final agency

decision, which was dated November 17, 1998, dismissing his complaint,

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim.

In its final decision, the agency identified the allegations of

appellant's September 21, 1998 complaint as whether appellant was

discriminated against when on May 20, 1998: (1) he was mentally abused by

an agency managerial official by being accused of not following his direct

order to report to the MDO office; and (2) he was harassed when that

same official threatened to suspend him for 14 days for insubordination.

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim since

appellant failed to show harm by any alleged adverse management action.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides that an agency may dismiss

a complaint which fails to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.103.

In order to establish standing initially under 29 C.F.R. �1614.103, a

complainant must be either an employee or an applicant for employment of

the agency against which the allegations of discrimination are raised.

In addition, the allegations must concern an employment policy or

practice which affects the individual in his/her capacity as an employee

or applicant for employment. The agency shall accept a complaint from any

aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he/she

has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,

religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. 29 C.F.R. ��1614.103

and .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).

Upon review, we find that the alleged discriminatory incidents involved

the accusation and the threat made by the responsible official. The EEO

Counselor's Report indicates that the alleged threat was made by the

responsible official during a pre-disciplinary interview, but appellant

received no disciplinary action as a result of the alleged incident.

The Commission has held that a remark or comment, unaccompanied by

concrete action, is not a direct and personal deprivation sufficient

to render an individual aggrieved. See Henry v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Request No. 05940695 (February 9, 1995). Furthermore,

we note that appellant alleged that the identified comments constituted

harassment. We find, however, that considering all of the alleged

harassing incidents and remarks together in the light most favorable

to the complainant, the incidents do not state a cognizable claim of

harassment. Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077

(March 13, 1997). Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby

AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

November 5, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations