0120123223
01-16-2013
St.Julian O. Cox, Jr., Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
St.Julian O. Cox, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
John M. McHugh,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120123223
Agency No. ARGORDON12MAY01983
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated July 18, 2012, dismissing 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Statistical Assistant at the Agency's Eisenhower Medical Center facility in Fort Gordon, Georgia. On June 20, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the bases of sex (male) and age (40) when he received an unfavorable midpoint review. Complainant also raised concerns regarding his leave slips and emails from his supervisor telling him to do tasks.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The instant appeal followed. In his appeal Complainant asserts a proper investigation was not done and that he suffered harm from the incidents.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5) provides, in part, that the agency shall dismiss a complaint that alleges that a proposal to take a personnel action, or other preliminary step to taking a personnel action, is discriminatory. In the instant case, Complainant's midpoint review is not his final performance evaluation. As such, Complainant's claims regarding this matter were properly dismissed.
Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a complaint from an aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). If complainant cannot establish that s/he is aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
The Commission has held that where, as here, a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, the claim of harassment may survive if it alleges conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). In his complaint, Complainant basically disagrees with the statements his supervisor made while he was give his midpoint review. We find that Complainant's allegations are insufficient to state a claim of a hostile work environment.
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under the EEOC regulations because complainant failed to show that he suffered harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. See Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Complainant alleges that there was delay in approving his leave slips but does not assert that his requests were denied. Additionally he did not raise this matter with the EEO Counselor. Although Complainant claims to have suffered damages as a result of the incidents at issue, the Commission has held that allegations that fail to state a claim cannot be converted into a viable claim merely because the complainant requests compensatory damages as a remedy. Ulanoff v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950396 (January 26, 1996); Shrader v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01961499 (November 3, 1997).
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
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
January 16, 2013
__________________
Date
2
0120123223
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120123223