01A21800
08-06-2003
John A. Price, Complainant, v. Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve System, Agency.
John A. Price v. Federal Reserve System
01A21800
August 6, 2003
.
John A. Price,
Complainant,
v.
Alan Greenspan,
Chairman,
Federal Reserve System,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A21800
Agency No. FRBEEO0106002
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his 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., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 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 decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Mainframe Systems Manager, FR-28, at the agency's Information
Technology Division, Security Systems and Data Center Branch, in
Washington, D.C. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently
filed a formal complaint on June 22, 2001, arising under Title VII and
ADEA, alleging that he was harassed in reprisal for prior EEO activity
when management subjected him to intimidation; abnormally monitored of
his performance; and transferred high visibility projects from him to
his minority peers.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
his 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.
The record reflects that complainant alleged that management subjected him
to intimidation when: (a) management closely evaluated his performance
on projects; (b) management did not grant complainant's request for an
alternative work arrangement (AWA) when it was first requested in March
of 2000<1>; (c) management stated that he was accountable for delays
in implementing the Mainframe Systems Rotation Program; (d) management
questioned his decision to ask a subordinate to act on his behalf while he
was away from his office on an AWA off-day; and (e) the Assistant Director
of Information Technology excluded him from informal management meetings
and refused to talk to him. Complainant's allegation regarding abnormal
monitoring complainant's performance is a result of management asking the
Executive for Technical Training about a course that he took. Finally,
complainant alleged that high visibility projects were transferred from
him to his �minority� peers. Specifically, complainant alleged that he
was told he would be given responsibility for �voice support� because
it fell within his area of expertise. Instead, it was transferred to
the Data Center Manager.
Complainant did not submit any documents in support of this appeal.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD. As a preliminary matter,
we note that we review the decision on an appeal from a FAD issued
without a hearing de novo. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). In any case
involving allegations of harassment, the challenged conduct must be
judged by looking at all of the circumstances including the frequency
of the conduct; its severity, whether it is physically threatening or
humiliating, or a mere offensive uttering; and whether it unreasonably
interferes with an employee's work performance. Faragher v. Boca Raton,
In order to establish a claim of harassment in retaliation for engaging
in protected EEO activity, complainant must show that: (1) he engaged
in prior EEO activity; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome conduct; (3)
the complained-of harassment was based on his prior EEO activity; (4)
the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with his work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. Roberts v. Department of Transportation,
EEOC Appeal No. 01970727 (September 15, 2000). We find that the FAD
properly determined that the complained-of incidents did not amount to
retaliatory harassment. Specifically, we find that the complained-of
incidents are normal workplace interactions between management and
employees which, without more, are not sufficiently severe or pervasive
to render the work environment hostile. Further, the record does not
support that management's actions were motivated by retaliatory animus.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we affirm the FAD.
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
August 6, 2003
__________________
Date
1 The record reveals that soon thereafter, complainant's request for
AWA was ultimately granted.