01992612
01-19-2000
Chester D. Corbin, Complainant, v. Alexis M. Herman, Secretary, Department of Labor, Agency.
Chester D. Corbin, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01992612
) Agency No. 9-09-018
Alexis M. Herman, )
Secretary, )
Department of Labor, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On February 9, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) received on January 9,
1999, pertaining to 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 Commission accepts complainant's appeal
in accordance with EEOC No. 960.001.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the agency properly dismissed the
present complaint for failure to state a claim.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 1998, complainant initiated contact with an EEO
Counselor. During the counseling period, complainant claimed that he
was being sexually harassed by his supervisor. Unable to resolve the
matter informally, complainant filed a formal complaint claiming he was
the victim of unlawful employment discrimination based on his gender
(male). Specifically, complainant alleged that he was subjected to
sexual harassment when: (1) complainant's supervisor asked a co-worker
how is �Chester the molester� referring to complainant; (2) on August
13, 1998 complainant's supervisor made gagging noises when she passed
complainant in the hall; and (3) on July 10, 1998, complainant learned
that his supervisor reported him for harassing female employees.
On January 9, 1999, complainant received the agency's final decision.
Therein, the decision dismissed his complaint for failure to state a
claim. The agency found that complainant was not an �aggrieved employee�.
We note that the agency only addressed the first incident of alleged
sexual harassment and did not include incidents (2) and (3) in its
decision.
On appeal, complainant argues that the agency's final decision failed
to consider all the incidents of sexual harassment that he raised.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37, 644, 37, 656 (1999)(to be codified and
hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)) provides, in
relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss 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). 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).
However, it is well-settled that, unless the conduct is very severe,
a single incident or a group of isolated incidents will not be regarded
as creating a discriminatory work environment. See James v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05940327 (September 20,
1994); Walker v. Ford Motor Company, 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the instant complaint, we find that complainant failed to show that
he suffered harm with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of
his employment as a result of the incidents raised. While the agency
improperly failed to consider all the incidents of alleged harassment
in making its determination, even when viewed in a light most favorable
to complainant, the incidents raised are too isolated and insufficiently
severe to establish a hostile work environment. Meaney v. Department of
the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169 (November 3, 1994). Consequently,
complainant's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Commission hereby AFFIRMS the
dismissal of the instant complaint for failure to state a claim.
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:
January 19, 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 Assistant1On 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.