01975225
03-12-1999
Appellant, v. Madeline K. Albright, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.
Timothy Hunter v. Department of State
01975225
March 12, 1999
Timothy Hunter,
Appellant,
v.
Madeline K. Albright,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01975225
Agency No. 91-24
Hearing No. 100-95-7947X
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (Commission or EEOC) from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his allegation that the agency discriminated against him on the
basis of religion (Catholic), when (1) at a meeting on March 28, 1991,
offensive remarks about religion were made to him by his supervisor,
and (2) the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of Mission requested the
curtailment of his assignment in Ottawa, in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with EEOC Order
No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory events, appellant was employed
as a Personnel Officer in the United States Embassy in Ottawa, Canada.
Believing that he was the victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO
counseling and, thereafter, filed a formal EEO complaint. The agency
accepted the complaint for investigation and complied with all of
our procedural and regulatory prerequisites. Subsequently, appellant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Upon
informing the parties of his intention to issue findings and conclusions
without a hearing and permitting an appropriate opportunity for response,
the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD) finding no discrimination.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e). Thereafter, the agency adopted the RD and
issued a FAD, dated April 30, 1997, finding no discrimination. It is
from this agency decision that appellant now appeals. No contentions
were submitted on appeal.
The investigative record reveals that appellant's supervisor (S1) called
a meeting with appellant in order to discuss a memo that appellant sent
to S1 which alleged, among other things, that S1 had a prescription
drug problem. This meeting was also attended by the Regional Security
Officer (RSO). While S1 and the RSO acknowledged that S1 made a
reference to receiving the memo on "this day," which happened to be the
Thursday before Easter, nothing in the record substantiated appellant's
assertion that S1 made any offensive comments in reference to appellant's
religion or that S1 was even aware of appellant's religion. Thereafter,
by telegram, S1 requested that the Director General's office investigate
the allegations set forth in appellant's memo. The telegram also stated
that if the allegations in the memo were proved false, S1 no longer wished
to supervise appellant. The subsequent investigation did in fact prove
that the allegations in the memo were false. Consequently, in April 1991,
the Ambassador and the Deputy Chief of the Mission curtailed appellant's
assignment because they lost confidence in appellant.
With respect to the assertion that S1 made offensive religious remarks,
the AJ concluded that appellant failed to show that such remarks were
made. The AJ further concluded that, assuming remarks had been made
as asserted by appellant, there was no showing that the incident was
severe or pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim.
Regarding the curtailment of appellant's assignment, the AJ concluded
that there was no showing of pretext. That is, appellant failed to show
that his assignment was curtailed for any reason other than management's
loss of confidence in his credibility once the allegations against S1
were proved false.
After careful review of the entire record, including appellant's
contentions on appeal, and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, the Commission finds that the AJ's RD
presented the relevant facts, and properly analyzed the appropriate
regulations, policies and laws. The Commission discerns no basis to
disturb the AJ's finding. Accordingly, the FAD 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. � l6l4.604(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. 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 12, 1999
______________ ____________________________________
Date Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations