01993118
07-12-2000
William J. Hewlett, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
William J. Hewlett, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01993118
) Agency No. 4B-020-0155-98
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's decision dated February 4, 1999,
dismissing complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim is proper
pursuant to the regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (to be
codified as and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)).<1> In
his complaint, complainant alleged that on July 5, 1998, he was subjected
to harassment when he was accused of taking supplies. The Commission
has consistently held that a remark or comment unaccompanied by concrete
action is not a direct and personal deprivation sufficient to render an
individual aggrieved for the purposes of Title VII. Henry v. USPS, EEOC
Request No. 05940695 (February 9, 1995). There is no evidence in the
record that complainant was issued any disciplinary action as a result
of the alleged accusation. Furthermore, although complainant alleged
in his complaint that the subject incident constituted harassment, the
Commission does not find that the alleged action was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment such as to state a
claim of harassment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17,
21 (1993); Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077
(March 13, 1997). Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby
AFFIRMED.<2>
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:
July 12, 2000
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised
regulations governing the EEOC's federal sector complaint process
went into effect. These regulations apply to all federal sector
EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative process.
Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations found
at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2On appeal, by letter dated March 30, 1999, complainant raises new
discriminatory claims. Complainant is hereby advised that if he wishes
to further pursue those matters, he shall contact an EEO Counselor within
15 days after he receives this decision. The agency is hereby advised
that if complainant seeks EEO counseling regarding the new claims as
instructed above, the date he filed the appeal statement in which he
raised these claims with the agency shall be deemed to be the date of
the initial EEO contact, unless he previously contacted an EEO Counselor
regarding these matters, in which case the earlier date would serve as
the EEO Counselor contact date. Cf. Oatsha v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970201 (January 16, 1998).