01982824
03-24-1999
Winifred M. Ferrall, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Winifred M. Ferrall v. Department of the Navy
01982824
March 24, 1999
Winifred M. Ferrall, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982824
) Agency No. 98-62573-001
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On March 9, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final agency decision (FAD) received by her on March 6, 1998,
pertaining to her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 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. In her complaint,
appellant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on the bases
of sex (female), age (40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
Appellant experienced a hostile work environment, from August 11, 1997
to September 7, 1997, by being told that if she was dissatisfied with
her "outstanding" performance appraisal for 1996 and accompanying $500
cash award, she should file a grievance or EEO complaint.
The agency dismissed the allegation pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the
agency found that the comments of agency officials did not constitute
an "injury in fact," and that all changes made to the appraisal were
done for appellant's benefit.
The record indicates that appellant received her appraisal on August 5,
1997, but noticed that the dates on the appraisal had been changed when
she returned from leave August 11, 1997. Appellant wrote a letter
questioning the propriety of her appraisal, and an agency official
responded that she should file a grievance or EEO complaint if she had
a problem with her appraisal. Appellant also informed her supervising
officer of the problem, and, according to appellant, he became very
upset about the date inconsistencies, and agreed to look into the matter.
On appeal, the agency stressed that any changes made to appellant's
report corrected an inadvertent clerical mistake. The agency also notes
that appellant would not have been eligible for the $500 cash award,
if the dates of her appraisal had not been changed.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides, in relevant part, that
an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any 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;
�1614.106(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. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme
court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's
employment. The Court explained that an "objectively hostile or abusive
work environment" is created when "a reasonable person would find
[it] hostile or abusive" and the complainant subjectively perceives it
as such. Harris, supra at 21-22. Thus, not all claims of harassment
are actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or
inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment,
a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment
to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless
it appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts
in support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief.
The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents
and remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to
the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim.
Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13,
1997).
In the present case, appellant alleged that she was subjected to
a hostile work environment when her concerns regarding the altered
dates on her performance appraisal were not dealt with appropriately.
We note that other than the remark by one agency official that appellant
should file a grievance or EEO complaint if she had a problem with her
appraisal, there does not appear to be any actions which constitute
part of the alleged harassment. We find that this one remark does not
constitute a cognizable claim under the EEOC Regulations. See Cervantes
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930303 (November 12,
1993). Appellant failed to identify any injury to a term, condition,
or privilege of her employment. Accordingly, the agency's decision to
dismiss appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim was proper.
CONCLUSION
The agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint for failure to
state a claim is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date
you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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. Filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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:
March 24, 1999
____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations