01a43780
07-13-2005
Janice Moore, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.
Janice Moore v. Department of Defense
01A43780
July 13, 2005
.
Janice Moore,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A43780
Agency Nos. XL-01-019A-F & XL-01-019G
Hearing No. 150-2003-08158X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's final order in the above-entitled matter.
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.,
on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), age (unspecified), and
reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was subjected to a hostile work
environment in the following manner:
(1) on November 28, 2000, the operations manager (S1) directed
complainant and a black co-worker to go home for five hours of
administrative leave and reflect on how things should be done in
the office;
S1 subsequently requested that she not document the incident of November
28, 2000;
on or about January 3, 2001, S1 made derogatory remarks about
complainant;
on January 18, 2001, S1 directed complainant to develop and provide
a checklist for contract administration preparation of a contract
modification;
on January 22, 2001, S1 directed complainant to prepare a weekly
work count form, kept her out of the loop, and refused to discuss the
recommendations regarding the distribution of work load;
on or about January 22, 2001, S1 asked that she bring the monthly metrics
report to her appraisal meeting, verbally reprimanded her for submitting
it on the Overage UCA form, and inquired as to why the report reflected
another employee's work code;
on January 30, 2001, S1 prevented her from submitting a timely response
and delayed the processing of her Department of Labor (DOL) claim;
on February 23, 2001, S1 joked and laughed about her DOL claim;
on April 24, 2001, at S1's direction, her supervisor questioned why
her office door was closed;
on May 7, 2001, S1 singled her out and embarrassed her for being late
to a meeting;
on May 15, 2001, at S1's direction, her supervisor gave her a job
performance deficiency letter;
on May 18, 2001, she was compared unfavorably to another employee;
on June 12, 2001, she learned that S1 questioned another employee about
her EEO complaint and expressed that he was going to use it as a witness
statement regarding complainant's DOL claim;
on July 11, 2001, she learned that S1 questioned an employee regarding
personal property that was stolen from his desk and indicated that
complainant was the only one who had access to his office;
on August 23, 2001, she learned that S1 told the union steward that
he had news for complainant: "She had an EEO complaint against me,
and she's gonna be burnt real big before this is over with;"
on August 27, 2001, S1 directed that complainant receive a letter of
instruction concerning grievance-related activities;
on August 29, 2001, she learned that her supervisor warned a co-worker
not to associate with her;
on September 7, 2001, she received a letter of instruction entitled
Bargaining Unit Representative Guidelines;
on October 15, 2001, S1 directed complainant's supervisor to tell her
she was under intense scrutiny and spoke to her three times about proper
lunchtime procedures;
on November 27, 2001 she became aware of the wording on her mid-year
performance appraisal was changed from "exceeds" to "meets" with regard
to her critical performance standards;
on December 3, 2001, in response to complainant's inquiry regarding the
change in the performance appraisal, the team leader remarked that her
performance was not a constant and there had been performance-related
discussions;
on December 7, 2001, S1 subjected complainant and another employee
to intense scrutiny and made false accusations regarding an extended
lunch break;
on January 17, 2002, complainant was excluded from a meeting where,
among other things, her work performance was discussed, and she received
supervisory work directions regarding her work but was not informed of
the directions;
on January 23, 2002, she received an email stating that it was
unfortunate she found it necessary to elaborately document every
event that involved her in the office and described her email as
"unacceptable;"
on January 24, 2002, complainant was ordered to the conference room
for a meeting with some co-workers and to follow an employee to the
postage machine for a lesson on its operation;
on January 24, 2002, management publicly compared complainant's
performance to a trainee's and made false accusations that she was
giving her work to a trainee to perform;
on January 24, 2002, complainant was threatened with disciplinary action
during a team meeting;
on January 28, 2002, management threatened complainant with disciplinary
action via an email regarding the requirement to request and receive
management authorization to take time to conduct union business;
on January 31, 2002, complainant learned that S1 and another manager
attempted to lower her annual performance rating;
on February 6, 2002, in response to complainant's "good news" email,
management stated that complainant's "good news" email was in conflict
with the DCMAE Staff Audit Visit Review;
Management did not respond to complainant's "good news" email of January
31, 2002;
since February 6, 2002, management has not acknowledged or responded
to a written compliment regarding complainant;
on an ongoing basis, S1 and another manager have assigned her office
accommodations approximately half the size of her counterparts, with
lesser amenities;
on February 19, 2002, management assigned a male employee with less
seniority to a better office;
on February 19, 2002, she was informed that one of her contract
administrators was being reassigned;
on May 8, 2001, S1 sent a letter to the DOL, which was unresponsive
to its request of his accounting of the events of November 27 through
29, 2000;
on June 14, 2001, S1 sent a letter to DOL which made defamatory
statements about complainant;
on April 17, 2001, S1 sent a letter to the EEO counselor, indicating a
male Administrative Contract Officer had been allowed to delegate the
responsibility to his Contract Administrator, while complainant was
given a mandatory written directive to submit a Weekly Work Count form;
on October 31, 2001, the Fiscal Year 2001 Accomplishments Report
reflected negative connotations regarding complainant's job performance;
since the initiation of the EEO complaint, the Divisional Administrative
Contract Officer included numerous other email addresses to her
recommendation emails;
on November 6, 2001, an email with S1's name was left in an open public
area which compared women to prostitutes;
on August 22 and 29 2001, and on or about September 27, 2001, S1 diverted
the subject of complainant's employee rights issues to mentioning a
witness in her complaint, and who he believed would receive an upcoming
promotion; and
S1 and another supervisor spoke to a shop steward and distorted
information.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the final agency order because
the Administrative Judge's ultimate finding, that unlawful employment
discrimination was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is
supported by the record.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 13, 2005
__________________
Date