Barbara Rankin, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 23, 2009
0120091681 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 23, 2009)

0120091681

07-23-2009

Barbara Rankin, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Barbara Rankin,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120091681

Hearing No. 410200800265X

Agency No. 4H300033507

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated December 24, 2008, dismissing her complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed by the

agency as a letter carrier in Lilburn, Georgia. In an EEO complaint

filed on December 29, 2007, complainant alleged that she was subjected

to discrimination on the bases of age (59) and reprisal for filing

the current complaint when, since approximately March 2007, she was

subjected to continuing harassment by her first level supervisor.

Complainant further alleged that she complained about the harassment on

several occasions to the Postmaster, but she did nothing about it.

On January 23, 2008, the agency issued a letter partially dismissing and

partially accepting portions of the complaint. Specifically, the agency

accepted an issue concerning a September 19, 2007 seven-day suspension

on the charge of leaving the mail. The agency dismissed for failure to

state a claim what it characterized as an issue concerning a September

11, 2007 letter of warning for taking an extended break, on the basis

that complainant was no longer aggrieved because the letter of warning

had been reduced to an official discussion. Following an investigation

into the accepted issue, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ).

On September 9, 2008, the agency filed a motion with the AJ to dismiss

the complaint in its entirely. The agency argued that the suspension was

reduced to a letter of warning which subsequently was removed from her

record. The agency noted that complainant alleged a claim of reprisal,

but argued that complainant indicated her claim of reprisal was based

on the instant complaint rather than any prior protected activity.

Further, complainant alleged discrimination based on her age under

the ADEA. There are no compensatory damages available to complainant.

Therefore, the agency asserted that the matter was moot. In response to

the agency's motion, complainant indicated that she had been subjected

to harassment by the agency due to her age since March 2007.

On December 1, 2008, the AJ issued her decision remanding the

matter to the agency for dismissal of the complaint. The AJ noted

that the suspension had been reduced and subsequently removed from

complainant's employment record. Further, because complainant alleged

age discrimination, she would not be entitled to compensatory damages.

As such, the AJ determined that complainant's claim concerning the

suspension was moot.

On December 24, 2008, the agency issued its final decision implementing

the AJ's decision. Complainant appealed asserting that she had been

subjected to harassment and that the matter should be remanded for a

hearing before an AJ.

As an initial matter, we find that complainant's complaint has been

mischaracterized throughout its processing. A fair reading of the

complaint and related materials, complainant's affidavit provided during

the investigation, her response to the agency's motion to dismiss

and her statement on appeal, reveals that complainant is essentially

alleging a single claim of ongoing harassment by management since March

2007 that included, by was not limited to, the letter of warning and

seven-day suspension issued in September 2007. In addition to the two

disciplinary actions, complainant alleged that the supervisor demeaned

her on an almost daily basis, including telling her that she needed to

work faster, that she needed to retire, and that she was working slowly

in order to work overtime. Complainant also noted that the supervisor

threatened her for drinking water. Complainant further stated that

when she complained on a number of occasions to the Postmaster about the

supervisor's behavior, not only did the Postmaster do nothing to stop him,

she also told complainant that maybe she needed to retire.

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) authorizes

the dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency

shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for

employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by

that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age

or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). We first note

that complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of retaliation and

indicated that her protected activity was the instant EEO complaint filed

after the events at issue. Therefore, we find that there is no evidence

to show that complainant participated in any prior protected activity.

As such, we agree that complainant's basis of retaliation was properly

dismissed.

With regard to the remaining age claim, we will first examine the two

disciplinary actions as discrete acts. The regulation set forth at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5) provides for the dismissal of a complaint when the

issues raised therein are moot. To determine whether the issues raised in

complainant's complaint are moot, the factfinder must ascertain whether:

(1) it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation

that the alleged violation will recur; and (2) interim relief or events

have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged

discrimination. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631

(1979); Kuo v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970343 (July

10, 1998). When such circumstances exist, no relief is available and

no need for a determination of the rights of the parties is presented.

Upon review of the record, we agree with the agency that the letter of

warning, when examined as a discrete act, was moot as it was reduced to

an official discussion and under the ADEA complainant is not entitled

to compensatory damages. For the same reason, we agree with the AJ's

determination that the suspension, as a discrete act, was also rendered

moot when it was rescinded and removed from her record.

However, complainant's overall harassment/hostile work environment claim

was not addressed by the AJ or the agency and both the suspension and

the letter of warning should be considered as evidence in support of the

alleged harassment. In considering such a claim, the Commission will

examine whether a complainant's allegations, when considered together

and assumed to be true, are sufficient to state a hostile or abusive

work environment claim. See Estate of Routson v. National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, EEOC Request No. 05970388 (February 26, 1999).

Even if harassing conduct produces no tangible effects, a complainant

may assert a cause of action if the discriminatory conduct was so severe

or pervasive that it created a work environment abusive to complainant

because of her race, gender, religion, national origin, age or disability.

Rideout v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01933866 (November

22, 1995) (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22

(1993)) request for reconsideration denied EEOC Request No. 05970995

(May 20, 1999). In applying this standard, the Commission finds that

complainant has alleged facts sufficient to state a viable claim of

hostile work environment.

Therefore, the Commission reverses the agency's decision to dismiss the

complaint and remands complainant's claim of age-based harassment/hostile

work environment in accordance with the Order below.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to process the remanded complaint by conducting a

supplemental investigation into the harassment/hostile work environment

claim (which should include, but not be limited to, the letter of warning

and suspension as evidence in support of the claim) in accordance with

29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant

that it has received the remanded claim 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 ninety (90) 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 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 (K1208)

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 77960, Washington,

DC 20013. 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 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) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).

If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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 (R0408)

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 (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

July 23, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0120091681

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120091681