Janice G. Dacanan, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital-Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 3, 2002
01A14184 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 3, 2002)

01A14184

12-03-2002

Janice G. Dacanan, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital-Metro Area), Agency.


Janice G. Dacanan v. United States Postal Service

01A14184

December 3, 2002

.

Janice G. Dacanan,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Capital-Metro Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A14184

Agency No. 4K-220-0161-97

Hearing No. 220-A0-5035X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order

concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging

a 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. For the following reasons, the Commission

affirms the agency's final order.

The record reveals that complainant, a Distribution Window Clerk

at an agency facility in Arlington, Virginia, filed a formal EEO

complaint alleging that she was harassed, both sexually and sex based,

in August 1997. Complainant contends that: a coworker (C1) touched,

pushed and called her �mean and nasty�; the wife of another coworker (C2)

threatened to blow her head off; another coworker (C3) threatened her

with physical harm; her request for a temporary transfer was denied; and

she was sent to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). At the conclusion

of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the investigative

report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.

Following a hearing, the Administrative Judge issued a decision

finding no discrimination which the agency adopted in its final order.

Complainant did not submit a statement in support of her appeal.<1>

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings

by an Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial

evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as �such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate

to support a conclusion.� Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor

Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding

regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual

finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).

An Administrative Judge's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo

standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

After a careful review of the record, we find that that the

Administrative Judge's findings of fact are supported by substantial

evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Commission makes the following

findings: (1) concerning C1, assuming without finding that the incident

between C1 and complainant constituted an incident of sexual harassment,

there is no basis for finding the agency liable because the agency took

prompt and corrective action to ensure that the alleged harassment would

not continue, and it ceased; (2) concerning the threat made by C2's

wife, the evidence establishes that more likely than not, the threat

was made because of complainant's conduct, the wife of C2 witnessed

complainant hugging and kissing C2 at a picnic, and not because of

complainant's sex; (3) concerning C3, the evidence does not establish

that such a threat of physical harm was ever made; (4) concerning the

temporary transfer, the evidence does not establish that the denial was

influenced by complainant's sex; and (5) concerning the referral to the

EAP, the evidence establishes that the referral was based on complainant's

inappropriate conduct, which was characterized as excessively flirtatious,

and not complainant's sex. We therefore conclude that the Administrative

Judge correctly determined that there was no violation of Title VII,

and we affirm the agency's final order.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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:

December 3, 2002

______________________________ __________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director Date

Office of Federal Operations

1 The agency requested that the Commission affirm its final order and

in so doing, cited incorrectly to the Commission's standard of review in

on appeal. We direct the agency's attention to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)

for the appropriate standard of review on appeal, as articulated herein.