01980391
04-10-2000
Charlotte D. Denny, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Charlotte D. Denny v. United States Postal Service
01980391
April 10, 2000
Charlotte D. Denny, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01980391
) Agency No. 1K-222-0044-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of
the agency concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.<1> The final agency decision was issued
on September 12, 1997. The appeal was postmarked October 11, 1997.
Accordingly, the appeal is timely (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999) (to be codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)),
and is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. The first issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed
claims 1-9 of the complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO contact.
2. The second issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed
claims 10-11 of the complaint on the grounds of failure to state a claim.
BACKGROUND
Complainant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on June 21, 1997.
On August 11, 1997, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint wherein she
claimed that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment on the bases
of her sex (female) and in reprisal for her previous EEO activity when:
1. On February 18, 1995, double standards were used when detailing
personnel to different days off and tour changes.
2. On June 6, 1995, she was questioned if a found earring belonged to
her in an attempt to connect her and a coworker as working in the same
area at the same time.
3. On June 28, 1995, and for several days, coworkers spoke foul and
coarse language referring to women in a sexual nature.
4. On July 24, 1995, she became aware of rumors asserting that she
dropped a grievance because her husband would find out about it.
5. On March 29, 1996, the computer used by complainant had wallpaper
of a sexual nature - naked women.
6. During March 1996, the office bulletin board displayed naked women
on postcards.
7. On April 22, 1996, complainant discovered an offensive paper posted
on the bulletin board concerning women and dogs.
8. On October 9, 1996, complainant was denied a transfer to another
tour even though she provided Family and Medical Leave Act documentation.
9. On February 28, 1997, complainant's supervisor made false statements
to the Manager, Distribution Operations, concerning her job performance
as to a work order.
10. During June 1997, complainant discovered an obscenely drawn picture
displayed on a computer screen containing messages and a person sitting
on a toilet.
11. On June 11, 1997, her supervisor made false statements when she
was accused of sleeping on-the-clock, and she subsequently received a
pre-disciplinary interview.
In its final decision, the agency dismissed claims 1-9 of the complaint
on the grounds that complainant failed to contact an EEO Counselor in
a timely manner. The agency noted that complainant initiated contact
with an EEO Counselor on June 21, 1997, which was more than 45 days after
the date of the alleged acts of discrimination set forth in claims 1-9.
The agency dismissed claims 10-11 on the grounds of failure to state
a claim. According to the agency, complainant failed to show that she
suffered a personal loss or harm with regard to a term, condition, or
privilege of her employment as a result of the alleged adverse management
actions set forth in claims 10-11. The agency noted that complainant
erased the obscene picture displayed on the computer screen rather than
report it. The agency further stated that a pre-disciplinary interview
is viewed as a discussion and not a disciplinary action.
On appeal, complainant claims that the actions at issue constitute sexual
harassment against her over a four year period. Complainant states
that in her work facility there have been numerous offensive materials
on the bulletin boards, computer screens, and in tools and parts cabinets.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(1)) provides, in relevant part, that
an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29
C.F.R. �1614.103); �1614.106(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. Department of the Air
Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 22, 1994).
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's
employment. The Court explained that an "objectively hostile or abusive
work environment [is created when] a reasonable person would find [it]
hostile or abusive:" and the complainant subjectively perceives it
as such. Harris, supra at 21-22. Thus, not all claims of harassment
are actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or
inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment,
a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment
to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless
it appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts
in support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief.
The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents
and remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to
the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim.
Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March
13, 1997).
In the present complaint, complainant claimed that she was subjected over
a four year period to discriminatory harassment based on her sex and in
reprisal for her previous EEO activity. Complainant described eleven
incidents of the alleged harassment in her complaint. Viewing claims
10-11 in conjunction with claims 1-9 in the light most favorable to
complainant, we find that complainant stated a cognizable claim under
the EEOC Regulations. See Cervantes v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05930303 (November 12, 1993). Accordingly, the agency's
decision to dismiss claims 10-11 for failure to state a claim was improper
and is hereby REVERSED. Claims 10-11 are hereby REMANDED for further
processing in accordance with the ORDER below.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1)) requires that complaints of
discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date of the
matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel
action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action.
The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed
to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45)
day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation
is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,
but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have
become apparent.
EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that she was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence she was prevented
by circumstances beyond her control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
The Commission has held that the time requirements for initiating EEO
counseling could be waived as to certain claims within a complaint when
the complainant alleged a continuing violation; that is, a series of
related discriminatory acts, one of which fell within the time period
for contacting an EEO Counselor. See Reid v. Department of Commerce,
EEOC Request No. 05970705 (April 22, 1999); McGivern v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05901150 (December 28, 1990).
A determination of whether a series of discrete acts constitutes a
continuing violation depends on the interrelatedness of the past and
present acts. Berry v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ.,
715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 868 (1986).
It is necessary to determine whether the acts are interrelated by a
common nexus or theme. See Vissing v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EEOC
Request No. 05890308 (June 13, 1989); Verkennes v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Request No. 05900700 (September 21, 1990); Maldonado v. Department of
the Interior, EEOC Request No. 05900937 (October 31, 1990). Should such
a nexus exist, complainant will have established a continuing violation
and the agency would be obligated to "overlook the untimeliness of the
complaint with respect to some of the acts" challenged by complainant.
Scott v. Claytor, 469 F. Supp. 22, 26 (D.D.C. 1978).
With regard to claims 1-9, we note that the alleged incidents occurred
in a period ranging from February 1995 - February 1997. As indicated
above, we find that complainant is raising a claim of harassment,
which includes those incidents described in claims (10) and (11),
occurring in June 1997. Complainant initiated contact with an EEO
Counselor with regard to the instant complaint on June 21, 1997.
It is apparent that complainant claims that the harassment inflicted
on her constituted a continuing violation. The majority of the cited
incidents of alleged harassment involve actions of a sexual nature;
the incidents are recurring; and frequently involve her supervisor.
Upon review, we find that complainant has established a continuing
violation and, therefore, complainant's EEO contact on June 21, 1997,
was timely with regard to all her claims of harassment. Accordingly, the
agency's decision to dismiss claims 1-9 of the complaint on the grounds
of untimely EEO contact is REVERSED. Claims 1-9 are hereby REMANDED to
the agency for further processing in accordance with the Order below.
CONCLUSION
The agency's dismissal of the subject complaint is hereby REVERSED.
The complaint is hereby REMANDED for further processing pursuant to the
ORDER below.
ORDER (E1199)
The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims in accordance with
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall acknowledge to
the complainant that it has received the remanded claims 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 one hundred fifty
(150) 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 an
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 (K1199)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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)(Supp. V 1993).
If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.409).
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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
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 (R1199)
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 (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:
April 10, 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
1On 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.