0120170735
07-26-2018
Chrystal S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Chrystal S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120170735
Agency No. 4K-210-0045-16
DECISION
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 December 5, 2016 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Letter Carrier for the Agency in Lutherville, Maryland.
On March 8, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her based on sex (female).
On April 5, 2016, the Agency issued its final decision. The Agency determined that Complainant alleged discrimination due to a hostile work environment. The Agency further determined that the formal complaint was comprised of the following alleged event.
1. on February 9, 2016, and ongoing, her supervisor belittles, disrespects and speaks to her in a demeaning manner about "everything" she does.
In its April 5, 2016 decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), finding that Complainant was not aggrieved. The Agency found that unless the conduct was severe, a single incident or group of isolated incidents would not be considered discriminatory harassment. Complainant appealed that decision to the Commission.
On June 28, 2016, the Commission determined that the Agency had improperly dismissed the instant formal complaint for failure to state a claim. The Commission determined that a fair reading of the record reflected that Complainant was alleging a pattern of harassment, and therefore stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations. The Commission remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing. Complainant v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161435 (June 28, 2016).
The Agency accepted the complaint for investigation. After the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination.
The instant appeal followed. On Complainant requests that her case be heard in front of an AJ. Complainant felt her complaint was "intercepted" and somehow directed by the Agency for a final decision. Complainant did not provide any new contentions on appeal.
The investigative record reflects the following pertinent matters relating to the subject claim.
Complainant named the Postmaster (male) as the primary responsible management official. Complainant stated that on February 9, 2016, she was summoned by the Postmaster to report for a pre-disciplinary interview (PDI). Complainant reported that the Postmaster accused her of abusing overtime on February 5, 2016. Complainant asked the Postmaster to pull up her last scan on that date to verify the abuse. The Postmaster refused to do so. Complainant informed the Postmaster that she believed that the Postmaster was "developing a pattern" in calling her to his office for no valid reasons. Complainant noted that the Postmaster had also summoned her on January 9, 11, and February 3, and 6, 2018. Complainant asserted the Postmaster accused her of other false violations, including not asking for a union presence when speaking to another employee, and returning to the station on an unfinished route. Complainant felt that the Postmaster treated his employees, particularly, and at times only the female employees, like slaves. She felt that male employees were treated with general respect and courtesy.
The Postmaster denied treating Complainant in a demeaning, belittling, or disrespectful manner. The Postmaster stated that on February 8, 2016, Complainant returned to the facility after completing her assignment and inquired about remaining for overtime. The Postmaster claimed that Complainant had suggested that she could stay and case mail for the following day. The Postmaster informed Complainant, however, that she was already in overtime, and additional overtime was not warranted due to the low mail volume. He reported that he instructed her to end her tour and go home. The Postmaster stated that approximately ten minutes later, he saw Complainant in the outgoing mail breakdown area, speaking with a supervisor. The Postmaster then inquired if she was "still on the clock." He claimed that Complainant, in turn, screamed at him and told him that he and another supervisor were "the worst Managers that she ever worked for because we were rude, and liars and disrespectful". The Postmaster noted that incidentally, Complainant had also inquired about additional overtime from this other supervisor, who had also denied the request. The Postmaster stated that the PDI was related to the February 8, 2016 outburst. The Postmaster also denied summoning Complainant for no reason. He noted that January 9, and February 6, 2018 were Saturdays, and he was off on those days and could not have called Complainant to his office.
The Supervisor of Customer Service (male) (hereinafter referred to as "S1") was one of Complainant's supervisors. S1 that he has witnessed the Postmaster belittle Complainant, but did not have specific dates, or a description of the events. He stated that when he saw it, he did not take any action because the Postmaster is his boss and he did not think he could tell his boss how to talk to employees. A second Supervisor of Customer Service (male) (hereinafter referred to as "S2") testified that he was also Complainant's supervisor. He could not recall the Postmaster belittling Complainant. S2 did not find the work place hostile.
A City Carrier Assistant (female) testified that on February 5, 2016, she returned to the facility to take her lunch break. While on break, she saw Complainant on the loading dock and they began engaging in a conversation about her frustrations. While Complainant was unloading her truck, the Postmaster came onto the dock and, in a rude manner, demanded to know why she (the assistant) was not working. After she informed him that she was on her break, she stated that the Postmaster redirected his attention to Complainant. She claimed that the Postmaster spoke rudely to Complainant "as if he owned her" and was insinuating in his words and actions that Complainant was lazy and not doing her job.
Complainant averred that the Agency's Anti-Harassment/Hostile Work Environment policy is not posted within the facility. Additionally, she reported that she has never received training in harassment/hostile work environment while employed with the Agency. She claimed, however that she has had over thirteen years working in a management capacity and "knows harassment and hostile work environment when she sees it".
The Postmaster claims that he was never informed that he was the cause of a hostile work environment. Complainant stated that she repeatedly told management about the harassment. S1 stated that it was not necessary for Complainant to tell him that the Postmaster's actions constituted harassment as he has personally witnessed the Postmaster "belittle, disrespect, yell, scream and threaten employees, including [him]self" on unspecific dates. He averred that he has had employees informally convey to him that they feel harassed by the Postmaster. S1 stated that as a result, he attempted to discuss with the Postmaster the inappropriateness of his outbursts and made him aware that some employees felt harassed by him, yet claimed, "he is my boss, I have made him aware of their concerns. But I can't control him". S2 noted that the Agency's Anti-Harassment/Hostile Work Environment policy is posted at the facility.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Hostile Work Environment
To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) she 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 the statutorily protected class; and (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. Humphrey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. �1604.11.
In determining that a working environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the alleged discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and if it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). The incidents must have been "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [Complaint's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris, 510 U.S. at 21. The harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994) (Enforcement Guidance on Harris).
Here, Complainant asserted that regarding the raised bases, the Postmaster continuously subjected her to a hostile work environment. Complainant provided examples of the harassing behavior. Specifically, her belief that he summoned her to his office for no valid reasons as a form of harassment. Complainant also had a witness, a city carrier assistant, who attested to the demeaning nature of the Postmaster. The record also contains various management affidavits. The Postmaster vehemently denied being harassing. S1 testified that the Postmaster was belittling to Complainant. However, he also noted that S1 was generally hostile to all employees, including himself. S1 noted that he had previously spoken to the Postmaster regarding how his actions were perceived, but noted that he (the Postmaster) was still his boss and felt he did not have much influence on him. S2 stated that he had not witnessed any hostile exchanges. Given the record, it appears that the Postmaster may indeed have a harsh personality. However, we find that Complainant has not established a nexus between the alleged harassing incidents and her sex.
While Complainant has cited various incidents where she felt that the Postmaster's actions were adverse or disruptive, we find that Complainant failed to show that these incidents were the result of unlawful discrimination. The record is clear that Complainant had a contentious relationship with the Postmaster. However, the Commission notes that Title VII is not a civility code. Rather, it forbids "only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). The record simply does not show that the conduct at issue was based on animus towards Complainant's protected classes.
In sum, there is no evidence which suggests the Agency's actions were based on discriminatory animus. Complainant has not provided any evidence that suggests that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus was involved.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
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; 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. 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
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 26, 2018
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120170735
6
0120170735