01980135
05-31-2001
Eddie A. Mitchell v. Department of Justice 01980135 05-31-01 .Eddie A. Mitchell, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Eddie A. Mitchell v. Department of Justice
01980135
05-31-01
.Eddie A. Mitchell,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01980135
Agency No. F-96-4809
DECISION
On September 30, 1997, Eddie A. Mitchell (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission) with regard to her complaint of discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The final agency action was dated August 28,
1997, and received by complainant on September 2, 1997. Accordingly,
the appeal is timely and is accepted by this Commission in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Based upon a review of the record, and for
the reasons stated herein, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM
the final agency action.
The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment
in reprisal for prior EEO activity under Title VII when her supervisor
interrogated her regarding an assigned project, made a joke about left
handed persons, required her to prepare a memorandum explaining why she
was six minutes late, and took documentation she had prepared from the
box of another supervisor.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in April 1996, raising the
above-referenced allegations of discrimination. The agency accepted
complainant's complaint for processing, and conducted an investigation.
The agency then provided complainant with a copy of the investigative
report and notified her of her right to request an administrative
hearing within 30 days. Receiving no response from complainant, the
agency issued a final decision finding that complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination and harassment as alleged. It is from this
decision that complainant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
agency correctly determined that complainant was not subjected to
reprisal discrimination or harassment. The complaint herein presents
the issue of whether the agency subjected complainant to disparate
treatment on the basis of her prior EEO activity. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), provides an analytical framework for
proving employment discrimination in cases in which disparate treatment
is alleged. First, complainant must establish a prima facie case by
presenting enough evidence to raise an inference of discrimination.
McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802. The agency may rebut complainant's
prima facie case by articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its action, and if the agency does so, complainant must show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's reasons are a pretext
for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, supra. The Commission notes
that the McDonnell Douglas analysis need not be adhered to in all cases.
In appropriate circumstances, when the agency has established legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decision, the trier of fact
may dispense with the prima facie inquiry and proceed to the ultimate
stage of the analysis, that is, whether the complainant has proven by
preponderant evidence that the agency's explanations were a pretext for
actions motivated by prohibited discriminatory animus. See United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983).
A review of the record reveals that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions at issue. Initially, the record
does not support complainant's assertion that her supervisor made a joke
about individuals who are left handed or was aware that complainant
fit that category. Further, complainant's supervisor questioned her
regarding an assigned project because the deadline for completion had
passed and complainant failed to complete a tracking report as requested.
With regard to the memorandum, complainant's supervisor indicated
that he was concerned because of a prior incident of tardiness which,
according to complainant's former supervisor, affected her performance.
Finally, the record shows that supervisors regularly signed communications
for other supervisors who were away from the office. Complainant's
supervisor indicated that he then inadvertently failed to return the
document to complainant, because the procedure used by complainant
to process such documents differed from that used by her co-workers.
Complainant failed to show that the agency's stated reason was a pretext
for prohibited discrimination. Further, we find no evidence that the
actions resulted from any discriminatory animus on the part of the named
management officials.
With regard to the issue of harassment, it is noted that an employer
violates Title VII by creating or tolerating a work environment
which is permeated with "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult" sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of an
individual's employment such as to create an abusive working environment.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (citing Meritor
Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Based upon a review of the
record, however, we find that the matters alleged constitute isolated
incidents which do not rise to the level of a Title VII violation.
Further, while it appears that complainant had a number of disagreements
with her supervisor, the actions in question are not sufficiently severe
or pervasive such as to create a hostile work environment. Therefore,
complainant's allegations, even if true, do not rise to the level of
prohibited harassment. Finally, the record shows that complainant was
reassigned to another supervisor once she brought her concerns to the
attention of upper level management. Accordingly, it is the decision
of the Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision.
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
___05-31-01_______________________________
Date