0120102791
09-24-2010
Tanya R. Wright, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Tanya R. Wright,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120102791
Hearing No. 430-2009-00247X
Agency No. 4K-270-0151-08
DECISION
On June 14, 2010, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's June 3, 2010, 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 accepts the appeal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final order.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this case is whether Complainant has established that she was subjected to hostile work environment, as alleged.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisor of Customer Service at the Agency's Chapel Hill, North Carolina Main Post Office. In October 2007, a new Postmaster (PM) was assigned to Complainant's office. PM was also tasked with supervising the two Agency's other locations in the Chapel Hill area (the Timberlyne and Franklin Street Stations). Prior to PM coming to Complainant's office, Complainant's responsibilities were concentrated in the areas of customer service and financial operations. Complainant also served as stamp stock custodian for all three offices in the Chapel Hill area. This duty required Complainant to maintain an accurate accounting of the reserve stamp stock at each office. She was also required to periodically audit the retail floor stock. After PM arrived, Complainant notified her that there was a $14,000 shortage in the stamp stock at one of the locations. Complainant explained that she was working on resolving the discrepancy. The error had occurred in May 2007, but Complainant had not discovered it until September 2007. Complainant made an accounting adjustment but PM informed her that there was a $15,580 item in transit in the accounting system. This meant that the office would be expensed for stamps that were not issued. PM thereafter ordered an audit for the three offices for which Complainant was responsible, and discrepancies were found at all three locations. PM discussed the results of the audit with her supervisor, the Post Office Operations Manger (POOM). They decided to transfer the stamp stock custodian duties to the Station Manager of one of the other offices. Complainant was not disciplined as a result of the audit.
PM also decided to implement several changes at Complainant's office. PM switched the shifts of at least two supervisors. She changed Complainant's days off from set days to rotating days, and assigned Complainant and the other supervisors to duties with which they were not familiar. In response to PM's changes, a meeting was held with POOM and the Manager of Human Resources. The supervisors, including Complainant, complained that: (1) PM constantly called them over the intercom to come to her office; (2) PM was not processing their leave requests in a timely manner; (3) PM had changed their work schedules, especially their days off; (4) PM had changed their duties and responsibilities; and (5) PM was treating them harshly and disrespectfully. Following the meeting, PM was told to make several changes in response to the complaints, which included processing the supervisor's requests for leave in a timely manner. PM was also ordered to notify the supervisors of their new schedules. Complainant's new schedule was 4:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., with a lunch break from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and rotating days off. She had previously worked Monday through Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
On August 21, 2008, Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor regarding PM's treatment of Complainant. Between August 26, 2008, and December 3, 2008, Complainant was often absent, which she attributed to stress. She attempted to return to work but indicated that her interactions with PM made her blood pressure rise. On October 30, 2008, PM transferred the stamp stock custodian duties from Complainant to an acting supervisor in another office. On December 1, 2008, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO when:
1. from October 2007 to the present, she was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment involving a series of events, including management denying her annual and sick leave requests; and
2. from August 2008 until December 2008, due to stress Complainant was forced to leave work which required medical treatment and medication.
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 held a hearing on October 26 and 30, 2009, and issued a decision on May 28, 2010. The AJ found that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that PM created a stressful work environment for all of the supervisors, regardless of their sex, race, or prior EEO activity. Further, the AJ determined that the substance of Complainant's allegations concerned personnel actions, changes in job responsibilities, or changes in workplace policies and procedures. The AJ found that Complainant had failed to present any evidence which showed that the alleged actions were taken in order to harass her. 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.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends that she continues to be subjected to a hostile work environment despite her having filed this case.
In response, the Agency requests that the AJ's finding of no discrimination be affirmed. The Agency explains that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the AJ's factual findings, conclusions of law and decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, at � VI.B. (November 9, 1999).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or religion is unlawful. McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-1139 (D.C. Cir. 1985). A single incident or group of isolated incidents will not be regarded as discriminatory harassment unless the conduct is severe. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982). Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe to trigger a violation of Title VII [and the Rehabilitation Act] must be determined by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).
Complainant alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and harassment. To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) he or she is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) he or 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. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); see 29 C.F.R. �1604.11.
In the case at hand, we find that Complainant has not established prong 3 of the above-stated analysis. Specifically, the Agency explained that the actions taken were common workplace occurrences. We find, based on the overwhelming evidence presented, that PM treated all of the supervisors in a harsh manner. Several of the supervisors testified that PM was not well-liked, micromanaged them, did not approve their leave in a timely manner, paged them to her office, and was just a difficult person to work for in general. We find that, other than Complainant's statements regarding how she physically reacted to PM's management style, she has not presented evidence which shows that PM's actions were made based on Complainant's race, sex, or prior EEO activity. Moreover, we find that, while the incidents cited by Complainant may have been frustrating or stressful, they were not severe or pervasive enough to establish that Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment. Accordingly, we find that the AJ's finding of no discrimination is supported by substantial evidence of record. Complainant has adduced neither argument nor evidence on appeal to warrant disturbing the AJ's decision.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order.
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
September 24, 2010
Date
2
0120102791
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120102791