Andrew P. Moore II, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 8, 1998
05970284 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 8, 1998)

05970284

10-08-1998

Andrew P. Moore II, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Andrew P. Moore II v. United States Postal Service

05970284

October 8, 1998

Andrew P. Moore II, )

Appellant, )

) Request No. 05970284

v. ) Appeal No. 01962838

) Agency No. 1H-322-1001-96

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

GRANT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

INTRODUCTION

On December 14, 1996, Andrew P. Moore II (hereinafter referred to as

appellant) timely initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (the Commission) to reconsider the decision in Andrew P. Moore

II v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster General, United States Postal

Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01962838 (December 5, 1996). EEOC regulations

provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider

any previous decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting

reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence which tends to

establish one or more of the following three criteria: new and material

evidence is available that was not readily available when the previous

decision was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision

involved an erroneous interpretation of law, regulation or material fact,

or misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2);

and the decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). For the reasons

set forth herein, the appellant's request is granted.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether the previous decision properly affirmed

the agency's final decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure

to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

Appellant filed his formal complaint on December 12, 1995, alleging

discrimination based on race (black) and reprisal. On January 29, 1996,

the agency issued its final agency decision (FAD), dismissing appellant's

complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the previous decision

affirmed the agency's action.

Appellant alleged that his supervisor (S1) yelled at him for stopping a

machine and continued to scream at him thereafter. He further alleged

that S1's action was part of a continuing pattern by S1 and other managers

to harass him. According to appellant, he had filed several other EEO

complaints in addition to the instant complaint, including at least one

involving S1.

The previous decision agreed with the agency that the issue raised in

the instant complaint failed to state a claim. The decision found that

appellant's single allegation of a verbal confrontation was not sufficient

to render him aggrieved.

In his request for reconsideration (RTR), appellant contends that his

complaint was not confined to the single incident described therein but

part of a larger pattern of harassment. The agency did not file comments

in response to appellant's RTR.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision

when the party requesting reconsideration submits written argument or

evidence that tends to establish at least one of the criteria of 29

C.F.R. �1614.407(c). Having reviewed the record, the Commission finds

that appellant's request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c).

Upon reconsideration, we find that appellant has filed a series of

complaints that state a claim of harassment and hostile work environment

and therefore that the incident herein is not an isolated incident.

We remand the complaint for consolidation with his other pending

complaints.

In the matter before us, the agency has defined appellant's complaint

as a single, discreet event. In framing the issue as an individual

episode, the agency fragments the impact of his several complaints into

separate parts and ignores appellant's general claim of harassment.

While the Commission's regulations assign agencies the responsibility

for identifying and framing the issues raised during the initial EEO

processing, agencies may not ignore the totality of the circumstances

where appellants raise allegations of a hostile work environment.

See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,

EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994), at 4-6. Here, the complaint

alleges not only the event described by the agency but also sets out a

claim of harassment by agency management.

For this reason, we find that the agency improperly dismissed appellant's

complaint. On remand, we direct the agency to consolidate this complaint

with any other pending complaints of appellant's that state a general

claim of harassment and hostile work environment.

CONCLUSION

After a review of the appellant's request for reconsideration, the

previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that

the appellant's request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c).

It is therefore the decision of the Commission to grant the appellant's

request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01962838 (December 5, 1996) and

the agency's final decision are REVERSED and the complaint is REMANDED.

The agency is directed to comply with the Order, below. There is no

further right of administrative appeal on a decision of the Commission

on a Request for Reconsideration.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to consolidate the instant complaint with

appellant's other complaints and process the remanded allegations in

accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to

the appellant that it has received the remanded allegations within thirty

(30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency

shall issue to appellant a copy of the investigative file and also shall

notify appellant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)

calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter

is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the appellant requests a

final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision

within sixty (60) days of receipt of appellant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgement to appellant and a copy

of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights

must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503 (a). The appellant also has the right

to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503 (g). Alternatively,

the appellant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying

complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File

A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to

the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1993). If the

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court. 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:

OCT 8, 1998

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat