Barbara A. Reisinger, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 8, 2000
01973537 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2000)

01973537

03-08-2000

Barbara A. Reisinger, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Barbara A. Reisinger, )

Complainant, )

)

) Appeal Nos. 01973537

) 01985679

) 01986702

) 01990354

) 01992561

) 01992908

) 01994090

) 01994091

v. ) 01994618

) Agency Nos. 4-B-140-0029-97

) 4-B-140-0057-98

) 4-B-140-0078-98

) 4-B-140-0009-98

) 4-B-140-0008-99

William J. Henderson, ) 4-B-140-0018-99

Postmaster General, ) 4-B-140-0053-99

United States Postal Service, ) 4-B-140-0062-99

Agency. ) 4-B-140-0025-99

____________________________________)

DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Complainant has filed seventeen appeals from final agency decision (FADs)

and one request for reconsideration with the Commission since 1995.

Eleven (11) of complainant's appeals presently are pending with the

Commission, nine (9) of which involve similar claims and grounds for

dismissal.<1> The Commission will address nine (9) of complainant's

pending appeals herein, pursuant to its discretion to consolidate

multiple complaints of discrimination from the same complainant for

joint processing. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.606.

II. BACKGROUND

In a prior complaint, Agency Number 4-B-140-0037-97, complainant alleged

that there were knots in her collection key chain, that a co-worker

played his radio loudly to harass complainant, that there was garbage

in complainant's jeep when complainant was assigned to Route 1922, that

complainant was denied overtime on December 20 and 21, 1996, and that

management failed to provide a safe work environment when complainant was

hit by a co-worker entering through the exit door. The agency accepted

all of complainant's claims except the incident involving knots in the

collection key chain. On appeal, the Commission found that the dismissed

incident was part of a claim of harassment, and therefore could not be

separated from complainant's accepted claims. See Reisinger v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973538 (Dec. 4, 1997).

Subsequently, complainant filed numerous complaints of harassment,

repeatedly alleging discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity

from, inter alia, radio usage or radio policies, knots in her key chain,

problems with the work performance of co-workers, garbage, and comments

from co-workers to complainant on various matters including complainant's

hat and socks, union elections, other co-workers, and supervisors.<2> In

each case, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination

in reprisal for prior EEO activity. In all nine (9) of the complaints

addressed herein, the agency dismissed some or all of the claims for

failure to state a claim. In each of these dismissals, the agency found

that no term, condition, or privilege of complainant's employment was

adversely affected, and that complainant's claims did not rise to the

level of a cognizable harassment claim. Also, the agency noted in several

FADs that complainant established a pattern of misuse of the EEO process,

and cited to a Recommended Decision (RD) of an EEOC Administrative Judge

(AJ), dated June 30, 1998, which cautioned the agency to consider the

burden complainant was placing on the administrative EEO system given that

at the time complainant had filed over fifty (50) EEO complaints, many

of which contained the same or similar claims.<3> The agency noted in

several appellate briefs that complainant has contacted an EEO Counselor

approximately every thirty (30) days since January 1995, and has filed

over seventy (70) EEO complaints. The agency attached print-outs of

complainant's EEO history to support its arguments of abuse of process.

The background of the pending complaints addressed by the present decision

are as follows:<4>

Appeal Number 01973537

Complainant alleged: (1) on November 8 and 12, 1996, there were knots in

complainant's collection key chain; (2) complainant's supervisor laughed

at complainant after a social announcement was made; (3) on November 13,

1996, there was garbage in complainant's jeep; and (4) on November 13,

1996, complainant was authorized to work one hour of overtime that later

was unauthorized. The agency accepted claims (3) and (4), but dismissed

claims (1) and (2).

Appeal Number 01985679

In a formal complaint dated May 16, 1998, complainant alleged: (1)

on March 23, 1998, a co-worker commented about union elections; (2)

on March 27, 1998, a co-worker rushed in front of complainant; (3)

on March 28, 1998, a co-worker blocked complainant's way; and (4) on

March 30, 1998, the union steward mentioned that no one voted for him

(the steward) in the election. The agency dismissed the complaint for

failure to state a claim.

C. Appeal Number 01986702

In a formal complaint dated August 2, 1998, complainant alleged: (1) on

June 22, 1998 a co-worker commented that complainant should feel guilty;

(2) also on June 22, 1998, Management commented that complainant was

paranoid and would not file so many EEO complaints if she had to pay

for them; (3) a co-worker commented about complainant's knee socks

and furry hat; (4) on June 24, 1998 complainant overheard a co-worker

tell the supervisor that he (the co-worker) felt threatened; and (5) on

June 30, 1998, complainant reported an injury and now fears discipline.

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

D. Appeal Number 01990354

In a formal complaint dated March 20, 1998, complainant alleged: (1) on

September 24, 1997, a co-worker's radio was too loud, and the co-worker

made harassing comments to complainant; (2) co-workers are allowed to use

radios despite the �no radio� policy at complainant's work site; and (3)

a co-worker sorted mail off the clock for the route that complainant was

to carry the next day. The agency dismissed the complaint for failure

to state a claim.

E. Appeal Number 01992561

In a formal complaint dated November 15, 1998, complainant alleged: (1)

on August 10, 1998, complainant was denied overtime; (2) also on August

10, 1998, there were trays left on the work room floor; (3) on August 11,

1998, a co-worker made comments about complainant going to the EEO office;

(4) on August 12, 1998, complainant's supervisor told complainant that she

would speak to her (the supervisor's) attorney about the conversation she

(the supervisor) had with a box clerk; (5) on August 14, 1998, a co-worker

walked by complainant and asked what smelled; (6) also on August 14,

1998, a supervisor told complainant not to involve anyone else; (7)

on August 20, 1998, complainant was issued a Letter of Warning (LOW)

for leaving mail in the hot case; (8) on August 26, 1998, complainant

was asked why she was going through a co-worker's case drawer; (9) also

on August 26, 1998, a supervisor did not respond when complainant asked

if she should take out parcels; (10) on August 27, 1998, a supervisor

called complainant a liar; (11) also on August 27, 1998, a supervisor

refused to hear complainant's request to change a co-worker's route

around; (12) on August 29 and September 1, 1998, co-workers left mail

in the hot case but were not disciplined; (13) on September 3, 1998,

a supervisor commented �you think you are perfect;� (14) on September 5,

1998, a co-worker was given mail from the hot case and questioned where

it came from; and (15) on September 8, 1998, a co-worker left DPS First

Class Mail and was not disciplined. The agency accepted claims (1) and

(7), but dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim.

Appeal Number 01992908

In a formal complaint dated December 22, 1998, complainant alleged: (1)

on September 15 and 23, 1998, complainant was told that there were knots

in the collection key chain by the Registry Clerk, and that the clerk

was taking out the knots; (2) in September 1998, complainant observed

a co-worker looking for something in an un-canceled mail tub, and later

found out that the co-worker was issued a LOW; and (3) in September 1998,

a co-worker verbally harassed complainant (comments not specified).

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Appeal Number 01994090

In a formal complaint dated March 1, 1999, complainant alleged: (1)

on December 17, 1998, the union steward told complainant to mind her own

business after complainant told the steward that he was wrong to collect

money from his co-workers for his own charity; and (2) on January 2,

1999, a co-worker derogatorily commented that complainant was casing

mail �sitting down.� The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to

state a claim.

Appeal Number 01994091

In a formal complaint dated March 1, 1999, complainant alleged that

on an unspecified date between December 17, 1998 and January 7, 1999,

a co-worker threw a white fiber tub that almost hit complainant.

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Appeal Number 01994618

In a formal complaint dated February 22, 1999, complainant alleged:

(1) on October 12 and 20, 1998, a co-worker removed the tub of rubber

bands from his case on the days prior to complainant being assigned

to the co-worker's route; and (2) in October 1998, a co-worker made

comments about a supervisor who was formerly in-charge of the unit.

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Complainant argues on appeal in these cases that she has suffered from a

progressive pattern of harassment, and that the incidents state a claim

when considered as part of the harassment claim. Complainant also claims

that her complaints were improperly processed because the EEO Counselors

did not record all of the information from the counseling sessions, did

not check with complainant's witnesses, did not represent the carriers

like they should, and were not partial to the carriers. Complainant

argues that the agency's improper administration of the process, and its

acceptance of her supervisor's statements as true, is the only abuse of

process stemming from her complaints. Complainant also claims that she

continues to file complaints because she would be fired if she ceased.

Complainant argues that she has no other options besides the EEO process,

and that �EEO is my offense� against her supervisors.

III. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS

This Commission has the inherent power to control and prevent abuse

of its orders and processes and procedures. See Buren v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05850299 (Nov. 18, 1985). The

procedures contained in Commission regulations provide the process by

which claims of discrimination are processed in the Federal sector, with

a goal of eliminating or preventing unlawful employment discrimination.

The procedures set forth should not be misconstrued as substitutes

for either inadequate or ineffective labor-management relations or an

alternative or substitute for labor-management disputes. Sessoms v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973440 (June 11, 1998).

EEOC Regulations provide for dismissal of complaints that are part

of a �clear pattern of misuse of the EEO process for a purpose other

than the prevention and elimination of employment discrimination.� 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. � 107(a)(9)). The criteria required to justify dismissal

for abuse of process, as set forth in Commission decisions, must be

applied strictly. Id. These criteria require:

(i) Evidence of multiple complaint filings; and

(ii) Claims that are similar or identical, lack specificity or involve

matters previously resolved; or

(iii) Evidence of circumventing other administrative processes,

retaliating against the agency's in-house administrative processes or

overburdening the EEO complaint system.

On rare occasions, the Commission has applied abuse of process standards

to particular complaints. Occasions in which application of the standards

are appropriate must be rare, because of the strong policy in favor of

preserving a complainant's EEO rights whenever possible. See generally

Love v. Pullman, Inc., 404 U.S. 522 (1972); Wrenn v. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 01932105 (Aug. 19, 1993).

In the present cases, complainant has made a concerted attempt

to retaliate against agency officials, not to obtain relief from

discrimination. Complainant admitted that she was using EEO for purposes

other than thwarting discrimination -- complainant considered the EEO

process �my offense� against agency officials. Further, complainant's

use of the process every thirty days for four (4) years to raise every

occurrence in her employment, regardless of the merit of the claim,

or whether similar or the same matters have been addressed in prior

complaints, overburdens the administrative process. The Commission cannot

permit a party to utilize the EEO process for this illegitimate goal,

nor can it allow individuals to overburden the system, which is designed

to protect individuals from discriminatory practices. Therefore, the

Commission declines to entertain the enumerated matters any further.<5>

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's dismissals delineated above are AFFIRMED for

the reasons set forth herein.<6>

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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 (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:

March 8, 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 Equal Employment Assistant 1Complainant's two (2) remaining

appeals concern merit findings of no discrimination, and are not

addressed in the present decision.

2A review of the claims handled by the Commission or an AJ, past and

present, reveals that complainant raised three (3) claims of knots

in a key chain, five (5) claims concerning discipline given to, or

not given to, a co-worker, seven (7) claims of garbage being left in

complainant's work area or jeep, and twelve (12) claims concerning

radio usage. This review does not include approximately sixty (60)

complaints, which have not yet reached the Commission for processing.

3The AJ found no discrimination in twenty-seven (27) claims contained

in seven different complaints (Agency Numbers 4-B-140-0037-97,

4-B-140-0042-97, 4-B-140-0050-97, 4-B-140-0059-97, 4-B-140-0070-97,

4-B-140-0076-97, and 4-B-140-0083-97). The agency adopted the AJ's RD.

Complainant appealed to the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01986276,

which is not being addressed in the present decision.

4On 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.

5The Commission recognizes that the new regulations require partially

dismissed complaints to be remanded for consolidation with the issues

accepted for investigation. However, the Commission finds that remand

of the dismissed claims from 01973537 and 01992561, under the present

circumstances, is impractical and not necessary.

6The Commission also advises the agency of its responsibility under

the new regulations to consolidate all pending complaints into one

investigation. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified

as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.606)).