01983320
05-10-2001
Hilda M. Jordan, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Hilda M. Jordan v. Department of Transportation
01983320
May 10, 2001
.
Hilda M. Jordan,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01983320
Agency Nos. 3-97-3012; 3-97-3037
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
concerning 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated
against on the bases of race (Black) and sex (female) when her supervisor
changed her performance appraisal from "Distinguished" to "Proficient"
and when her supervisor harassed her by making comments comparing women
to animals; stating that women in Africa breast feed their children up
to the age of ten; and asking her how much it costs weekly to maintain
her hair. Complainant also alleged that she was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Black) and in reprisal for prior protected activity
arising under Title VII when she was not placed in a permanent full-time
position upon graduation from college and the agency did not use the
correct termination procedures.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
in a Stay-in-School position as an Automation Clerk at the agency's Steven
C. Pugh Memorial Clinic in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Believing the
agency discriminated against her, complainant sought EEO counseling and
subsequently filed two formal complaints: one on November 2, 1996 and the
other on April 28, 1997. The agency consolidated the complaints and at
the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of her right
to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or alternatively,
to receive a final decision by the agency. When complainant failed to
respond within the time period specified in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the
agency issued a final decision, finding no discrimination. Nether party
submitted a statement in support of or in response to the instant appeal.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973); Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st
Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases); and Harris
v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), the Commission finds that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination
on any of her alleged bases. Regarding the performance appraisal, the
record indicates that the evaluation rating in question was raised,
in complainant's favor, from a "Proficient" to a "Meritorious,"
not lowered from a "Distinguished" to a "Proficient" as complainant
alleged. Regarding the verbal harassment, the Commission finds that the
alleged remarks, while objectively offensive, were, standing alone, not
sufficiently severe or pervasive to render the work environment hostile.
See Hironaka v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01976665
(March 27, 2001). Regarding her termination, the Commission finds that
complainant was a Stay-in-School employee whose appointment expired upon
her graduation and that there is no evidence complainant was guaranteed
any further employment. Finally, regarding the incorrect processing
of her termination, the Commission finds that complainant's official
personnel folder was temporarily misplaced due to a reorganization
in the personnel office which caused a delay in the processing of her
termination. Complainant did not proffer evidence establishing a nexus
between her prior protected activity and the misplaced personnel folder
nor did she forth evidence from which an inference of race discrimination
could be drawn. See Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567,
576 (1978). Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including
arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we affirm the agency's final 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
May 10, 2001
__________________
Date