Appeal Nos. 01985847 Minh T. Giang, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 25, 2000
01985847 (E.E.O.C. May. 25, 2000)

01985847

05-25-2000

Appeal Nos. 01985847 Minh T. Giang, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Minh T. Giang v. United States Postal Service

01985847

May 25, 2000

Appeal Nos. 01985847

Minh T. Giang, ) 01986062

Complainant, ) 01986063

) 01990441

v. ) 01990442

) 01991288

William J. Henderson, ) Agency Nos. 1D-231-0002-98

Postmaster General, ) 1D-231-0025-98

United States Postal Service, ) 1D-231-0048-98

Agency. ) 1D-231-0097-98

____________________________________) 1D-231-0098-98

1D-231-0152-98

DECISION

On July 24, 1998, August 4, 1998, October 20, 1998, and November 23, 1998,

complainant timely initiated appeals to the Commission from one agency

decision dated June 19, 1998, two agency decisions dated July 6, 1998, two

agency decisions dated September 11, 1998, and one agency decision dated

October 28, 1998. Complainant alleged that the agency violated Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be

codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.606) provides

that the agency or the Commission may consolidate two or more complaints

of discrimination filed by the same complainant. Accordingly, we will

address complainant's six appeals in one decision because in these appeals

complainant alleges that she has been subjected to a continuing pattern

of retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0002-98

On May 22, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Chinese-Asian),

color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex (female), and in

retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

After filing a formal complaint on July 22, 1997, and after having a

conversation with the Manager of Distribution Operations of Tour III

(MDO) on August 5, 1997, complainant was subjected to retaliation,

harassment, intimidation, and rude yelling through September 12, 1997.

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation

set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and

hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)), for stating the

same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or

Commission. Specifically, the agency stated that the matters raised in

complainant's present complaint are identical and arise from the same

transaction as the matters raised in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97.

In Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97, complainant alleged discrimination

based on race, color, national origin, and sex when on July 10, 1997,

she requested a meeting with the MDO to discuss problems she has having

with two acting supervisors and after the meeting occurred in August 1997,

complainant experienced more harassment and intimidation which resulted in

complainant leaving work sick on November 2, 1997, and taking additional

sick leave. In her May 22, 1998 complaint, complainant claimed that

her supervisors harassed her in various ways between August 5, 1997 and

September 3, 1997, (i.e., employee rushed at complainant as if he was

going to strike her; and another employee cursed at complainant).

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0025-98

On June 5, 1998, complainant filed a complaint of discrimination in

which she alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on the bases

of race (Chinese-Asian), color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex

(female), and in retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

Beginning in September 1997, through November 2, 1997, the MDO and other

supervisors purposely harassed, discriminated, retaliated, and practiced

rudeness towards complainant.

The agency issued a decision dated July 6, 1998, dismissing

complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation set forth at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for stating the same claim previously raised

and addressed in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97. In her June 5, 1998

complaint, complainant claimed that her supervisors harassed her in

various ways between September 1997 and November 2, 1997 (including,

commenting on the frequency of complainant's breaks, making remarks about

Chinese customs, staring at her, and timing her bathroom breaks). Also,

complainant alleged that her co-workers harassed her at the command of

her supervisors (i.e., co-workers called her an "ass-hole" and told her to

"go to hell").

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0048-98

On June 5, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Chinese-Asian),

color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex (female), and in

retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

On November 2, 1997, and December 2, 1997, the Manager of Distributions

Operations (MDO) and other supervisors have constantly and purposefully

practiced discrimination, harassment, intimidation, rudeness and required

complainant to do excessively hard work to the point where she feels

inadequate at work.

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation

set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for stating the same claim

that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission.

Specifically, the agency stated that the matters raised in complainant's

present complaint are identical and arise from the same transaction as

the matters raised in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97.

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0097-98

On August 7, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Chinese-Asian),

color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex (female), and in

retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

On March 21, 1998, co-workers screamed at complainant and picked on her;

On April 1, 1998, Associate Supervisor, Person A, pulled out a rack

and hit complainant and didn't say he was sorry;

On April 4, 1998, complainant came back late from lunch because she had

to get medical advice from the nurse with her supervisor's permission

and she was screamed at;

On April 9, 1998, complainant had to leave for an appointment and was

screamed and yelled at and a rumor began that she was lazy and doesn't

sweep mail down, and;

On April 15, 1998, complainant reported to her supervisor that a

co-worker had pulled a report from the computer and kept it, which

made the co-worker mad.

The agency issued a decision dated September 11, 1998, dismissing

complainant's complaint pursuant to � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to

state a claim. Specifically, the agency claimed that complainant failed

to provide any evidence that she suffered a personal loss or harm with

respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment as a result of

the alleged management actions cited in this case. With regard to claim

(2), the agency noted that complainant was not injured when Person A

hit her with the rack.

Agency No. 1D-231-0098-98

On August 7, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Chinese-Asian),

color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex (female), and in

retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

(1) On March 27, 1998, Supervisor B, screamed and yelled at complainant

and accused her of rudely leaving paper towels on the seat the night

before; and,

On April 3, 1998, Supervisor B, yelled at complainant to take off her

earphones while allowing another PTF mail processor (a black male)

to wear earphones.

The agency issued a decision dated September 11, 1998, dismissing

complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation set forth at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. Specifically,

the agency claimed that complainant failed to provide any evidence that

she suffered a personal loss or harm with respect to a term, condition,

or privilege of employment as a result of the alleged management actions

cited in this case.

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0152-98

On October 3, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Chinese-Asian),

color (yellow), national origin (Chinese), sex (female), and in

retaliation for prior EEO activity when:

On July 2, 1998, complainant was harassed by Supervisor B, when she was

being yelled and screamed at while instructed to move to 044 Unit, and

once complainant moved to the 044 Unit, Supervisor C harassed complainant

and treated her differently than the other workers.

The agency issued a decision on October 28, 1998, dismissing complainant's

complaint pursuant to the regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.105(a)(2)), on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact.

Specifically, the agency claimed that complainant did not contact a

Counselor until August 17, 1998, approximately forty-six (46) days after

the alleged discriminatory action occurred on July 2, 1998.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

We note that the agency dismissed complainant's six complaints for various

reasons, i.e., three complaints were dismissed for stating the same

claim as had been previously decided by the agency, two complaints were

dismissed for failure to state a claim, and one complaint was dismissed

on the basis of untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Commission finds,

however, that in each of these complaints, complainant alleged a pattern

of harassment. We note that complainant's appeals consistently argued

that these claims should be viewed in light of other similar statements.

However, the agency dismissed the claims in the present cases for

involving isolated incidents from which complainant suffered no concrete

harm. Complainant's harassment claims, in the present six cases, although

addressed in separate complaints, involve several different incidents of

alleged repeated harassment over the span of a little less than one year.

Further, complainant alleged that she repeatedly complained to management

about the harassment that she received, but that the harassment has

not ceased.

At the outset, we note that the agency improperly dealt with each claim

in a piecemeal manner, and therefore, allowed complainant's claim of

harassment to be fragmented among several pending complaints. See

Meaney v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169

(Sept. 29, 1994). (an agency should not ignore the "pattern aspect"

of a complainant's claims where an analogous theme unites the matters

complained of); Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request

No. 05970077 (Feb. 27, 1997) (claims in previous complaints used to

determine whether claims in pending cases are part of a pattern of

harassment).

With regard to Agency Case Nos. 1D-231-0002-98, 1D-231-0025-98, and

1D-231-0048-98, we find that the agency improperly dismissed these

claims as raising the same claim previously raised in Agency Case

No. 1D-231-0151-97. In Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97, complainant

alleged that on July 10, 1997, she requested a meeting with the MDO to

discuss problems she was having with two acting supervisors and after

the meeting occurred in August 1997, she experienced more harassment

and intimidation which resulted in complainant leaving work sick on

November 2, 1997, and taking additional sick leave. In Agency Case

No. 1D-231-0002-98, complainant alleged that after filing a formal

complaint on July 22, 1997, and after having a conversation with

the MDO on August 5, 1997, complainant was subjected to retaliation,

harassment, intimidation, and rude yelling through September 12, 1997.

On the formal complaint complainant lists the dates on which the alleged

acts of discrimination occurred to include the period from August 4, 1997

through September 12, 1997. In a statement attached to her complaint,

complainant describes the alleged discriminatory incidents beginning on

August 5, 1997, including several incidents of yelling and harassment from

her supervisors and co-workers. While complainant mentions the July 10,

1997 request for a meeting with the MDO and the subsequent meeting on

August 5, 1997, we find that this information consists of background

information for the claims of subsequent harassment that she raises in

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0002-98.

With regard to Agency Case No. 1D-231-0025-98, we also find that the

agency improperly dismissed this claim for stating the same claim

previously raised in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97. As previously

noted, Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97 involved a claim that on July

10, 1997, complainant requested a meeting with the MDO to discuss

problems she was having with two acting supervisors and after the

meeting occurred in August 1997, she experienced more harassment

and intimidation which resulted in complainant leaving work sick on

November 2, 1997, and taking additional sick leave. In contrast, in

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0025-98 complainant claimed that beginning in

September 1997, through November 2, 1997, the MDO and other supervisors

purposely harassed, discriminated, retaliated, and practiced rudeness

towards complainant. In her formal complaint, complainant lists

the dates on which the alleged discriminatory actions occurred to

include the period from September 12, 1997, through October 30, 1997.

Complainant identified several incidents of harassment by her supervisors,

including comments on the frequency of her breaks, remarks about Chinese

customs, and monitoring of complainant's bathroom breaks. We find that

in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0025-98, complainant did not raise the same

matters previously raised in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97.

With regard to Agency Case No. 1D-231-0048-98, we note that in the formal

complaint filed on June 5, 1998, complainant alleged that she was subject

to discrimination when the MDO and other supervisors harassed her on

November 2, 1997, and December 2, 1997, and constantly required her to

do excessively hard work to the point where complainant felt inadequate

at work. As previously indicated, in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97,

complainant challenged the MDO's delay in meeting with her to discuss the

problems she was having with two acting supervisors and raised the issue

of constant harassment resulting in her leaving work sick on November

2, 1997, and taking additional leave. In contrast, in Agency Case

No. 1D-231-0048-98, complainant raises an allegation of being harassed

on a daily basis and being forced to do excessively hard work. Thus,

we find that Agency Case No. 1D-231-0048-98 does not state the same

claim as previously raised in Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97.

Furthermore, we find that the agency's dismissal of Agency Case

Nos. 1D-231-0097-98 and 1D-231-0098-98 for failure to state a claim

was also improper because complainant alleged numerous incidents of

harassing treatment which were sufficient to rise to the level to a

state a hostile work environment claim. Finally, with regard to Agency

Case No. 1D-231-0152-98, we note that even if the Commission looked at

this complaint individually, it would not be untimely. We note that

the alleged discriminatory incident in that case occurred on July 2,

1998, and according to the EEO Counselor's report, complainant initially

contacted an EEO Counselor on August 17, 1998, forty-six (46) days after

the alleged incident occurred. Due to the fact that August 16, 1998 was

a Sunday, the time limit for Counselor contact extends to August 17,

1998, the next business day. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(d). Accordingly,

complainant's contact on August 17, 1998 was timely.

Accordingly, the agency's decisions dismissing complainant's claims

in Agency Case Nos. 1D-231-0002-98, 1D-231-0025-98, 1D-231-0048-98,

1D-231-0097-98, 1D-231-0098-98, and 1D-231-0152-98 were improper and are

hereby REVERSED and these claims are REMANDED for further processing in

accordance with the Order below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:

Consolidate the remanded claims with any related claims, in particular,

Agency Case No. 1D-231-0151-97, and notify complaint of such

consolidation.

Process the remanded claims in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29

C.F.R. � 1614.108).

The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant that it has received and

consolidated the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the

date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue to complainant

a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify complainant 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 complainant requests a final decision

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

(60) days of receipt of complainant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment and notice of

consolidation to complainant 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 (K1199)

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

complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order,

the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant 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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408), and 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant 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. �� 1614.407

and 1614.408. 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 complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

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 (R0400)

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 WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. 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 (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:

May 25, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date

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.