0120140257
05-25-2016
Barabara C.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Barabara C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140257
Agency No. 1J-601-0005-13
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's September 16, 2013, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Agency's final decision (FAD) which found no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this case is whether Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment on the bases of her age, disability, sex, race and/or prior EEO activity when she was subjected to a number of work place incidents.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Full-time General Expeditor at the Agency's Carol Stream Illinois Distribution Center in Carol Stream, Illinois. Complainant maintained that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. She indicated that beginning on November 1, 2012, she was harassed on a daily basis that included being followed to the restroom/breaks, having papers snatched out of her hand, and she was told to get out of a work area. She was not allowed to perform her duties, she was issued a suspension after she mentioned her supervisor's son, and she was told that she could not do her job in a chair even though it was more efficient to do it that way.
On February 4, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), disability (Carpal Tunnel, chronic back pain, neck, shoulders, bilateral cubal tunnel, arthritis in the knees, bilateral tarsal tunnel and uterus prolapse), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. Beginning November 1, 2012, she was harassed on a daily basis including being followed to the restroom/breaks; snatching papers out of her hand; and telling her to get out of her area;
2. Since July 2012, she was not permitted to perform her duties as Lead Clerk; and
3. On December 13, 2012, she was issued a 14-Day Suspension for Improper Conduct;
Complainant also filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), disability (Carpal Tunnel, chronic back pain, neck, shoulders, bilateral cubal tunnel, arthritis in the knees, bilateral tarsal tunnel and uterus prolapse), age (56), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
4. On March 12, 2013, she was harassed and told she could not sit down in a chair to do her work.
Following an investigation by the Agency, Complainant was sent the investigative report and was given 30 days within which to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). As Complainant failed to timely request either a hearing or a FAD, the Agency issued a FAD. The FAD procedurally dismissed claims 2 and 3, as they were brought before the union when Complainant filed grievances on the actions. The Agency maintained that claims 2 and 3 were properly dismissed because they were collateral attacks on the grievance process. The FAD also determined that claim 3, did not state a claim as the matter was resolved in a grievance settlement on January 25, 2013, when the suspension was rescinded and removed from all postal records and files.
Notwithstanding the FAD also addressed the merits of each allegation. The Agency maintained that assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases, management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that with regard to claim 1, Complainant was not followed or harassed she was simply asked why she was in a work area other than her own. Management explained that she was not allowed to work as a Lead Clerk because she was being trained on a new machine. She was issued a suspension because she made a comment about her supervisor's son that was interpreted as a threat and therefore she was disciplined according to the zero tolerance policy. And finally, Complainant was not allowed to sit and perform her work because the job did not require a chair and even though Complainant thought it made more sense to sit and perform the function that was not job. Moreover, Complainant had no restrictions on file. The Agency found that Complainant did not demonstrate that the Agency's articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant, among other things, contends that the Agency erred in issuing her a FAD as she requested a hearing in this case as she did in all of her other complaints. Complainant also maintains that the Agency's dismissal of claims 2 and 3 was improper. She maintains that her claims were not a collateral attack on the grievance process. Complainant asserts that it was widely known that she was an employee with a disability and she believes this fact contributed to management harassing her on a daily basis. Complainant also maintains that she does not know her supervisor's son, and did not threaten him. She argues that the suspension did not pertain to Agency operations or business. Complainant also asserts that the Agency's actions are just a pattern of harassment that she has been exposed to.
In response, the Agency contends that Complainant did not request a hearing and that it has no documentation from its office or the EEOC that supports Complainant's contention that she requested a hearing.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the Agency's final decision. We find that even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. With regard to claim no. 1, Complainant, according to the Agency, was not followed from the restroom or from her breaks. Management explained that as Complainant walked by managers would ask her what she was doing in a work area that she was not assigned too and therefore she was asked to leave. Management maintained that this was just a work related question and was not meant to harass Complainant. Moreover, papers were taken out of her hand because she was looking at information that did not pertain to her.
With regard to claim no. 2, Complainant was not allowed to perform her duties because she was being trained on new duties. Regarding claim no. 3, Complainant was suspended due to a comment she made that was interpreted as a threat to the son of Complainant's supervisor. Management maintained that Complainant was suspended because her comment violated the zero tolerance policy. Finally, with respect to claim no. 4, Complainant was not allowed to sit down because her position was not one where it was safe to use a chair and she had no medical restrictions. We find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination.
With respect to Complainant's contention that she was subject to a hostile work environment with respect to the matters set forth in her complaint, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
With respect to Complainant's contentions on appeal, we find that other than Complainant's conclusory statements she provided no evidence which showed that she requested a hearing.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's FAD which found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination and/or a hostile work environment.2
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ n's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
___5/25/16_______________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 Because of our decision above, we do not find it necessary to address whether the Agency's procedural dismissals of claims 2 and 3 were correct.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140257
2
0120140257