Sylvia A. Dancy, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 9, 2011
0120093078 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 9, 2011)

0120093078

08-09-2011

Sylvia A. Dancy, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.




Sylvia A. Dancy,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120093078

Agency No. 1H-322-0036-08

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant’s

appeal from the Agency’s June 12, 2009 final decision 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., and Section 501

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the reasons which follow, the Commission

AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether the measures taken by the Agency following

Complainant’s report of discriminatory co-worker harassment were

sufficient to relieve the Agency of liability.

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2008, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging

discrimination on the basis of race (African-American) and disability

(stress) when on March 16, 2008, she was called “fucking nigger” by

a coworker (CW), and management allegedly took no action. The complaint

was accepted for investigation. Complainant was provided with a copy

of the resulting report, ad was advised of her right to request either a

hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or an immediate final decision

from the Agency. Complainant requested an immediate final decision.

In its final decision, the Agency found that it took prompt remedial

action after receiving notification of CW’s remark. Specifically,

the Agency noted that after receiving notification of CW’s remark,

management immediately escorted CW out of the building, placed him

in an emergency placement in off-duty status, and promptly conducted

an investigation into the matter. Further, the Agency noted that

management issued CW a 14-day suspension without pay on April 3, 2008,

as punishment. The Agency also noted that on April 23, 2008, it conducted

diversity and sensitivity training that CW attended.

The instant appeal followed. Neither party filed a brief on appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

To establish a claim of harassment Complainant must show that: (1) she

is a member of the statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to

harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving

the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the

statutorily protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or

condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably

interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating,

hostile, or offensive work environment. Humphrey v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (Oct. 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. 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 Systems. Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8,

1994). Further, the incidents must have been “sufficiently severe and

pervasive to alter the conditions of complainant's employment and create

an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510

U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see also Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. Inc.,

23 U.S. 75 (1998).

In a case of co-worker harassment, an agency is responsible for acts

of harassment in the workplace where the agency (or its agents) knew

or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took

immediate and appropriate corrective action. See EEOC Enforcement

Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by

Supervisors, No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d).

Although Complainant has clearly satisfied the four prongs noted

above,1 we find, however, that the Agency took immediate and appropriate

corrective action as soon as Complainant gave notice of CW’s remark. The

record shows that after Complainant reported the incident, management

immediately escorted CW out of the building; placed CW in an emergency

placement off-duty status; investigated the incident; issued CW a 14-day

suspension without pay on April 3, 2008; and provided CW with diversity

and sensitivity training. The record reflects that there has been no

recurrence of the alleged harassment, nor has Complainant been subjected

to any retaliation for reporting the incident. While we recognize that

the epithet used by CW was particularly foul, we nonetheless find that

the actions taken by the Agency are sufficient to relieve it of liability.

CONCLUSION

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

of all statements submitted on appeal, and for the forgoing reasons,

it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to

affirm the Agency’s final decision.

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 (Nov. 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

1 We note that prong 3 is satisfied with regard to race, based on the

nature of the epithet. However, there is no evidence from which to

conclude that CW was motivated by animus toward Complainant’s asserted

disability status.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120093078

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120093078