Paula M. Glass, Complainant,v.John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 12, 2010
0120072972 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 12, 2010)

0120072972

01-12-2010

Paula M. Glass, Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Paula M. Glass,

Complainant,

v.

John M. McHugh,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072972

Hearing No. 420-2006-00129X

Agency No. ARREDSTON05NOV12186

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from an agency's final action dated May 10,

2007, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint. In her

complaint, dated January 4, 2006, complainant, a Logistics Clerk,

GS-5, at the agency's Aviation and Missile Command Integrated Material

Management Center, Alabama, alleged discrimination based on race (Black),

sex (female), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on November 16,

2005, her supervisor continued his harassment of her by sending her an

offensive/hate electronic mail message, entitled, "If the South ruled

the Country," which had pictures and symbols of the confederate flag

and the Ku Klux Klan. The record indicates that at the conclusion

of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). On April 18, 2007, the AJ, after a hearing,

issued a decision finding no discrimination, which was implemented by

the agency in its final action.

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

an AJ 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 AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a

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

An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or

on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or

other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so

lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it.

See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).

In this case, the AJ determined that, assuming arguendo that

complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination,

the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the

alleged incident. Complainant's supervisor stated that he sent the

alleged inappropriate electronic mail message to complainant by accident.

The supervisor indicated that he meant to send it to his wife. When he

realized his mistake, the supervisor promptly apologized to complainant.

Complainant admitted the supervisor did so. Upon complainant's reporting

of this incident, the supervisor's superior investigated the matter.

The AJ noted that as a result of the investigation, the supervisor was

formally disciplined and had a written reprimand placed in his personnel

file for a period of three years.

With regard to complainant's harassment claim, the AJ determined that

the alleged isolated electronic mail message did not establish the

severity of discriminatory conduct to support a claim of harassment.

The AJ further stated that although complainant and the supervisor had

difficulty working with one another, there was no evidence in the record

to show that the sending of the electronic message by the supervisor

was motivated by discrimination. Upon review, the Commission finds that

the AJ's factual findings of no discriminatory intent are supported by

substantial evidence in the record.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is

AFFIRMED because the AJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

1/12/10

__________________

Date

2

0120072972

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013