Britany C.,1 Complainant,v.Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 13, 2020

2019005790 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 13, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Britany C.,1 Complainant, v. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary, Department of State, Agency. Appeal No. 2019005790 Agency No. DOS-0055-19 DECISION On September 16, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s September 5, 2019, final decision concerning his 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Security Technical Specialist at the Agency’s U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv/Jerusalem facility in Tel Aviv, Israel. On November 7, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment/harassment on the basis of sex (male), status as a parent, and in retaliation for “whistleblower activity” when: 1. On September 21, 2018, he was removed from his residence and prohibited from contacting his family; 2. On September 26, 2018, he was forced to accept a voluntary curtailment of his assignment to Tel Aviv, Israel; 3. His security clearance has been subjected to reinvestigation “for cause;” and 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. 2019005790 2 4. He is being subjected to a hostile work environment characterized by, but not limited to, threats of personnel action and pressure to retire. The Agency dismissed Complainant’s allegations on the bases of his status as a parent and retaliation for his whistleblower activity, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. In so doing, the Agency noted that, to state a claim under EEOC regulations, a complainant must allege a present harm inflicted on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or in reprisal related to EEO activity or opposing discriminatory policies or practices. The Agency accepted the complaint as to the alleged basis of sex and conducted an investigation, which produced the following pertinent facts: Complainant was assigned to the Agency’s facility in Tel Aviv, accompanied by his spouse (“Spouse”) (female) and children. He and his family resided in U.S. government-supplied housing. On September 21, 2018, Spouse reported an incident of domestic violence to the Deputy Regional Security Officer (Deputy RSO), alleging Complainant assaulted her. The alleged assault occurred on September 9, 2018, while they were on vacation in Poland. Deputy RSO attested that, based on Spouse’s report, it was reasonable to believe that domestic violence had occurred, and he reported the situation to the front office and the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), as required by Agency policy. The Agency’s Family Advisory Team (FAT) was advised of Spouse’s report of domestic violence and they recommended that, in the best interest of the family, Complainant and Spouse be separated for a cooling down period. One factor in the decision was Spouse’s comment that she was afraid of Complainant’s finding out that she made the report. Members of the FAT recommended the separation out of concern for further violence, without a determination as to the veracity of Spouse’s allegations, until a decision could be made as to the next steps. The Deputy Chief of Mission instructed that Complainant be removed from the residence, pending further deliberations by the FAT. On September 21, 2018, Deputy RSO and two other Agency employees went to the residence Complainant shared with his Spouse and their children and informed Complaint that he was being relocated to a hotel. Complainant and Spouse were instructed not to contact each other until a decision was made about the alleged domestic violence incident. Complainant cooperated and was escorted to a hotel. On September 25, 2018, Complainant reported to Deputy RSO that Spouse was the aggressor in the domestic violence incident. Deputy RSO instructed Complainant to communicate with OSI, as they had jurisdiction. 2019005790 3 In the instant complaint, Complainant alleged sex was a factor because he was required to leave the residence, while Spouse remained in the home with their children. On September 26, 2018, Complainant met with a Human Resources Officer (HRO) and Agency security personnel and was informed that he must immediately leave the post and return to the United States. He was given the choice of voluntary or involuntary curtailment. He was informed that the issues facing his family could not be addressed locally and resources were not available to manage his family situation. Complainant agreed to a voluntary curtailment because the official reason would be classified as personal and there would be no discipline. He also attested that he selected voluntary curtailment because, even though he was the victim of Spouse’s assault, he did not believe he would have any support at the post. HRO explained that when there is a conflict between two members of a household and one or more of the individuals are direct hires, the Agency policy is to curtail the direct hire. She further explained that this approach is preferred as there is an unwillingness to involve the local police in a potential domestic violence situation. She explained that the post cannot adjudicate claims and make a determination, as that authority rests with OSI. She explained that the post has no authority to require a family member of a direct hire to leave the country and the only viable option is to require the direct hire to curtail, which then will require the spouse or other family member to vacate the government-supplied housing. The Deputy Chief of Mission attested that she made the decision to curtail Complainant, as this was the third occasion of serious behavioral incidents involving Complainant since he arrived, less than a year ago and, based on the advice from FAT, she instructed that he be given a choice of voluntary or involuntary. On September 28, 2018, Complainant returned to the United States. Spouse and their children remained behind to pack their belongings and arrived in the United States on October 17, 2018. Upon his arrival in the United States, Complainant was informed by Diplomatic Security that an update for approval of his security clearance had been initiated “for cause.” Complainant’s security clearance was not scheduled to expire until June 2021. Complainant alleged that the review of his security clearance was initiated by the post to support their decision to remove him from Tel Aviv. The Office Director of DS/SI/PSS explained that he was, in part, responsible for the investigation and adjudication of security clearances for the Department and Complainant was subject to an “out of cycle” investigation regarding his security clearance because of the reports received from a Diplomatic Security investigation alleging potential misconduct. He explained that the investigation was “for cause,” non-routine, and pursuant to regulations. With respect to the alleged harassment, Complainant attested that, on November 7, 2018, the Agency notified him that he was the subject of an administrative inquiry into allegations that he was a harasser. 2019005790 4 He explained that he learned that, during a social setting, he made a comment about Spouse that might have been considered a distasteful joke but did not rise to the level of harassment. He also alleged that, during a meeting with the American Foreign Service Association and Human Resources, a Human Resources representative asked him when he anticipated retiring. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant alleges the Agency has operated in bad faith and violated his constitutional rights. He asserts that the Agency subjected him to disparate treatment based on sex; harassment on the basis of sex (separation from family and fraudulent sexual harassment inquiry); harassment based on age (pressure to retire); harassment based on engagement in several protected activities, including filing EEO complaints, engagement in whistleblower activities, and filing a labor grievance. He also alleges a hostile work environment and retaliation. His lengthy appeal details various allegations, including violations of the U.S. Constitution (First and Fifth Amendments); the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and Presidential Policy Directive 19; and criminal laws, including abduction, kidnapping, and extortion. Complainant’s allegations against the Agency also include a lack of due process and slander and defamation of character. He also requests that his EEO allegations be investigated by an impartial party identified by the Office of Special Counsel, alleges “perjury” on behalf of several of the Agency’s witnesses, and alleges the Agency is engaged in a cover-up and “physiological warfare” against him. The Agency has not submitted a brief or statement in response to the appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Standard of Review As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). 2019005790 5 Dismissal of Claims Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a complaint from an 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). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). If Complainant cannot establish that s/he is aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). The Agency dismissed Complainant’s allegations of discrimination and harassment on the basis of his status as a parent and in retaliation for his whistleblower activity, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. These allegations do not fall within the purview of the EEO complaint process. Therefore, we agree with the Agency that these allegations fail to state a claim.2 Disparate Treatment Claims Complainant has alleged that the Agency treated him disparately in removing him from his residence, forcing him to accept a curtailment, and reinvestigating his security clearance. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For a complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for its actions. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine. 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). Even if we assume that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, his claims ultimately fail, as we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. 2 With respect to Complainant’s allegations on appeal of violations of the U.S. Constitution, whistleblower protection laws, criminal laws, and tortious laws not addressed by EEO laws, these laws are not within the purview of the EEO complaint process. To the extent Complainant also raises new EEO claims on appeal, these allegations are not currently before the Commission. 2019005790 6 The Agency explained that, following Spouse’s report of domestic violence, the Agency felt it in the best interest of the family that Complainant and Spouse be separated for a cooling down period, pending a determination as to what steps were next. The Agency further explained that there is an unwillingness to involve local authorities in such matters and it lacks the authority to adjudicate such matters. The Agency explained that in such situations involving a direct hire employee and an accompanying spouse, it is the Agency’s policy to curtail the direct hire, which would then cause the spouse and family to be required to vacate the government-supplied housing. The Agency also explained that Complainant was subject to an “out of cycle” investigation regarding his security clearance because of the reports of alleged potential misconduct. We note that, although Complainant and Spouse disagree as to who initiated the domestic violence, Complainant does not deny that the domestic violence occurred. We find the Agency’s actions of separating the spouses, sending the employee back to the United States, and subjecting him to another security investigation to be reasonable under these circumstances. Therefore, although Complainant has alleged discrimination, he has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons articulated by the Agency were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or motivated by some unlawful discriminatory animus with respect to any of these claims. Harassment Claim Complainant has alleged the Agency subjected him to harassment, noting several alleged instances. To establish a claim of hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). See also, Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994). In other words, to prove his harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis - in this case, his sex. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. Although Complainant asserts that the Agency acted discriminately, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Complainant’s sex played any role in the incidents at issue. Thus, Complainant’s allegations, even if true, are insufficient to support a claim of discriminatory harassment. 2019005790 7 Complainant’s harassment allegations can generally be described as relating to managerial decisions, such as conducting harassment investigations, and isolated statements, such as asking him about his retirement plans. Without evidence of an unlawful motive, we have found that similar disputes relating to managerial decisions do not amount to unlawful harassment. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122676 (Dec. 18, 2014) (The record established that the issues between the complainant and the supervisor were because of personality conflicts and fundamental disagreements over how work should be done and how employees should be supervised, and there is no indication that the supervisor was motivated by discriminatory animus towards the complainant's race, sex. or age); Lassiter v. Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between a supervisor and a complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). We have also found allegations relating to statements a complainant found unpleasant or inappropriate, are insufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the conditions of his employment. See Phillips v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July 12, 1996) (the allegation that a supervisor had “verbally attacked” the complainant on one occasion, attempted to charge him with AWOL, and disagreed with the time the complainant entered into a sign in log, were found to be insufficient to state a harassment claim). The allegations, assuming they are true, were isolated incidents that are insufficient to support a prima facie case of harassment. See Rennie v. Dalton, 3 F.3d 1100 (7th Cir. 1993). Thus, his harassment claim fails as well. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0617) 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; 2019005790 8 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. Complainant’s request 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 agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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. 2019005790 9 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: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations March 13, 2020 Date