0120100735
08-09-2011
Rhonda A. Mayfield, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Rhonda A. Mayfield,
Complainant,
v.
Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120100735
Hearing No. 570-2008-00886X
Agency No. RD200800060
DECISION
On December 9, 2009, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s
November 17, 2009, final order concerning her equal employment opportunity
(EEO) complaint alleging 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 Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as
a Supervisory Human Resources Specialist at the Agency’s Field Services
Branch in St. Louis, MO. On February 1, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the
basis of her sex (female) when: (1) in early 2007, she reported that
two of her subordinate employees were being harassed by a supervisor
and management failed to investigate; and (2) she was subjected to a
hostile work environment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
timely requested a hearing. The AJ found that, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a
hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact
in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on September 28,
2009, finding no discrimination. The Agency subsequently issued a final
order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that
the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD issued
without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency’s
decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. §
1614.405(a). The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a
decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine
issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is
patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held
that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given
the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case,
there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence
but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial.
Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at
the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn
in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is
“genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder
could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip.Corp., 846 F.2D 102,
105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential
to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be resolved
by weighing conflicting evidence, it is not appropriate for an AJ to
issue a decision without a hearing. In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a hearing only
upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for
summary disposition. Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision
without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact
exists. It is well-settled that harassment based on an individual’s
sex is actionable. See Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57
(1986). In order to establish a claim of harassment, the complainant
must show that: (1) she belongs to the statutorily protected classes;
(2) she was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to her membership in
those classes; (3) the harassment complained of was based on her sex;
(4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile,
or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing
liability to the employer. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897
(11th Cir. 1982). The harasser’s conduct should be evaluated from
the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim’s
circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc.,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). Upon review of the record, we
find that Complainant has not alleged any actions sufficiently severe
or pervasive to rise to the level of actionable harassment, nor has
she shown that any actions alleged were based on her sex. Accordingly,
we affirm the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to establish her
claim of a hostile work environment.
Finally, with respect to claim (1), we find that Complainant lacks
standing to pursue redress for any alleged sex based harassment
experienced by her subordinates because she did not suffer a harm or
loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment as
a result of the alleged conduct. See Edwards v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 01830784 (1983).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the final
agency decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
August 9, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120100735
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120100735