Angela R. Dawson-Lee, Complainant,v.Pete Geren, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 20, 2009
0120072422 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 20, 2009)

0120072422

03-20-2009

Angela R. Dawson-Lee, Complainant, v. Pete Geren, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Angela R. Dawson-Lee,

Complainant,

v.

Pete Geren,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072422

Agency No. ARJACKSON05MAY08601

Hearing No. 430-2006-00067X

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the March 20, 2007

agency decision which implemented the decision of the EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ) who, after a hearing, found no discrimination.

Complaint alleges 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. Specifically, complainant,

a registered psychiatric nurse, alleged that the agency discriminated

against her on the bases of sex (female), religion (nondenominational),

and disability, when the agency subjected her to harassment.1

In her decision, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish that

she had an impairment which substantially limited any major life activity.

The AJ noted that while the record established that complainant could

not lift more than 50 pounds or participate in "takedown" procedures,

complainant had provided very little information about her medical

condition at the hearing. The AJ also found that the limited testimony

which complainant provided did not establish that the shoulder limitation

that complainant described was restricting her ability to perform

a major life activity. The AJ concluded that those circumstances,

combined with the lack of supporting medical evidence and complainant's

lack of credibility, were insufficient to establish that complainant

was an individual with a disability.

Regarding her harassment claim, the AJ found that while complainant had

shown that she was a member of the protected groups of religion and sex,

she failed to establish that she was subjected to harassment in the form

of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct. Regarding not being allowed

to take the same breaks as male psychiatric technicians, the AJ noted

the testimony of complainant's supervisor, the head nurse at Seven West

Inpatient Psychiatry, that there was a written policy requiring that a

registered nurse be present on the floor at all times and if complainant

needed a break, she could call another unit to provide coverage.

The AJ noted that the male psychiatric technicians were not similarly

situated to complainant. Regarding complainant's claim of religious

discrimination, the AJ noted that complainant was "strangely silent"

regarding the claim at the hearing and the overwhelming testimony of

record was that as soon as complainant complained about the posting

of religious materials in the workplace, the materials were removed.

Regarding complainant's supervisor's failing to complete the workers'

compensation form for complainant the AJ noted that it was not completed

because it was not the proper form. The AJ found also that it was

not complainant's supervisor but the agency's workers' compensation

administrator who had called complainant's physician for information

about her workers' compensation claim and her work status. The AJ also

found that when the agency called complainant on April 3, 2005, because

complainant had reported sick on April 2, the agency wanted to know

if complainant would be reporting on April 3, because another nurse had

called in sick on April 3. The AJ also found that complainant was required

to undergo re-orientation when she returned to employment in July 2005,

because she was a new employee who was away from work for several months.

Regarding complainant's lack of credibility, the AJ noted that complainant

was less than responsive to questions asked on cross-examination and

other witnesses who recounted their own issues with complainant's lack

of veracity. The AJ found the testimony of complainant's supervisor

forthright. The AJ also concluded that what complainant perceived as

harassment was her supervisor doing what a supervisor properly does in

a supervisor's job.

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.

Harassment is actionable only if the incidents to which complainant

has been subjected were "sufficiently severe or 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., 523 U.S. 75 (1998);

Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13,

1997). To establish a prima facie case of harassment, complainant must

show that: (1) complainant is a member of a statutorily protected class

and/or was engaged in prior EEO activity; (2) complainant was subjected

to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct related to her membership in that

class and/or her prior EEO activity; (3) the harassment complained of

was based on her membership in that class and/or her prior EEO activity;

(4) the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering

with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile,

or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing

liability to the employer. See Roberts v. Department of Transportation,

EEOC Appeal No. 01970727 (September 15, 2000) (citing Henson v. City of

Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)). Further, the harasser's conduct

is to 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).

Assuming without deciding that complainant has established a prima

facie case as to each basis and also assuming, without deciding that

complainant is a person with a disability, the AJ's ultimate finding that

unlawful employment discrimination was not proven by a preponderance of

the evidence is supported by the record. Complainant failed to show that

the agency subjected complainant to discriminatory harassment. Moreover,

the agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

its actions. The record does not support a finding that any agency

action was motivated by discriminatory animus. The AJ's decision is

supported by substantial evidence.

The agency's finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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), 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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

March 20, 2009

__________________

Date

1 The AJ noted at the onset of the hearing that complainant's termination

during her probationary period was not a claim before her.

??

??

??

??

5

0120072422

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013