0120122933
01-13-2015
Complainant, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120122933
Agency No. EOI201100735
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's June 15, 2012, final decision concerning her 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Agency's final decision (FAD) which found that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Legal Assistant at the Agency's Executive Office of Immigration Review, Immigration Court in Charlotte, North Carolina. Complainant alleged that after she filed an EEO complaint her supervisors inundated her with work, kept information from her, treated her disrespectfully, ignored her, and despite numerous requests she was not provided assistance with her heavy work load. Complainant also maintained that she was not allowed to take leave and her request for a reasonable accommodation went unanswered. On October 3, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability (stress, fatigue, and tendinitis) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when from June 2011 to May 2012, she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her prior EEO activity and the filing of the present complaint when:
A. In June 2011, she was denied assistance with her duties and when she met with her supervisors they treated her in a hostile and threatening manner;
B. In June 2011, her supervisors came to court to check up on her without acknowledging her personally;
C. In July 2011, her supervisor denied and then subsequently approved her request for four weeks of medical leave;
D. In October 2011, her supervisor snatched papers out of her injured hand; in November 2011, her supervisor ignored her request for assistance with her duties and denied her request for a reasonable accommodation;
E. Her supervisor gave her a rating of "satisfactory" on her midyear review;
F. Her supervisor informed the Immigration Judge about a remark that she made about the judge;
G. In April 2012, her supervisor increased her duties unfairly;
H. In April 2012, her supervisor delayed but ultimately approved her worker's compensation claim;
I. Her supervisor remarked to her co-worker that Complainant was trouble and that the co-worker should stay away from her; and
J. From August 2011, to May 2012, her supervisors denied her training opportunities.
Following an investigation by the Agency, Complainant requested a FAD. The FAD found that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to reprisal or harassment. The FAD determined that assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal and disability discrimination, the evidence showed that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Management explained that Complainant was never denied assistance with her duties and that any time that she asked for assistance it was given. Management also indicated that they routinely checked the court rooms to see what was going on and neither Complainant's first-line nor her second-line supervisors recalled not speaking to Complainant on one of these visits. Further, management explained that Complainant submitted a very vague doctor's note which indicated that she needed to take off four weeks of medical leave due to her stress level. The note was given to management late in the afternoon and the leave was to take effect the following day. Complainant's supervisor indicated that Complainant was told that she would have to discuss it with the second-line supervisor. The second-line supervisor approved the leave the following day.
With regard to snatching papers out of Complainant's hand, management indicated that Complainant took it upon herself to do the work of an absent coworker. Management indicated that Complainant was told to ask management before taking on additional duties but no one recalled papers being snatched from her. Management also maintained that Complainant received a rating of satisfactory because while her work was good it had steadily declined. This assessment also included the comments of the judge for whom she worked. Also, management stated that with respect to Complainant's contention that her supervisor informed her judge that she made a statement about him, management maintained that they were not familiar with any comments made to her judge and nor did they tell coworkers that Complainant was "trouble." Further, management indicated that Complainant's worker's compensation claim was not held up as medical documentation was needed for her claim of tendonitis. Finally, management asserted that Complainant received on-the-job training just like two other legal assistants. Moreover, management asserted that Complainant never requested any training and no training was ever denied. The Agency maintained that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus was involved with regard to any of the incidents in this claim. In fact, the Agency maintained that Complainant's first-line supervisor was not even aware that Complainant had previously filed an EEO complaint.
Additionally, the Agency maintained that Complainant was not denied a reasonable accommodation, as she failed to show that she was a qualified individual with a disability. Nevertheless, the Agency indicated that Complainant was provided assistance whenever she requested it. Finally, the Agency asserted that even assuming that all of the incidents were true; they were work related incidents that dealt with work assignments and supervisory relationships and were not severe or hostile enough to establish a hostile work environment.
CONTENTINONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant contends, among other things, that she never received the "two weeks of training" promised when she resolved her first complaint.1 Complainant contends that this absence of training made her prone to making mistakes and this caused her to be ridiculed by management. Complainant also maintained that management failed to share useful information with her and shared specific things only with her coworker. Complainant maintained that she was denied assistance provided to others despite an on-the-job injury. She asserts that she has had problems with her first-line supervisor since she was the Lead Legal Assistant and she maintains that despite her complaints to upper management nothing has been done. Finally, she maintains that she has not had a week's vacation since December 2010. She maintains that she was denied a vacation from May 31, 2011 through June 3, 2011.
In response, the Agency requests that its FAD be affirmed. The Agency maintains that the incidents cited by Complainant ranged from vague, to unsubstantiated, to factually inaccurate but even if these matters were taken as true, they were not severe or pervasive enough to establish a claim of hostile work environment. Management also maintains that the alleged incidents did not bear any connection to her prior protected EEO activity.
Further, the Agency indicated that Complainant made requests for reasonable accommodation in the form of assistance on November 17, and 30, 2011. Management indicated that Complainant submitted a vague doctor's note stating that her time in court should be limited to four to six hours per week. On the 17th, Complainant was scheduled to be in court only for two hours so this was within her request. On the 30th, while Complainant was provided assistance she was asked to complete a Request for Reasonable Accommodation Form, so that her needs could be properly considered. Additionally, the Agency maintained that Complainant's leave request was approved once management was able to discuss it and plan the work schedule. The delay in approving her request was only one day. Therefore, the Agency maintained that she was not denied an accommodation. The Agency also reiterates that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or harassment in any manner.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the Agency's final decision. We find that even if we assume arguendo that Complainant has established a prima facie case of reprisal and disability discrimination and assuming without finding that Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability, we find the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, as was discussed above and Complainant failed to show that the reasons were pretext for discrimination. We also find that the record shows that any time Complainant requested assistance with her work it was provided so Complainant's claim that she was denied a reasonable accommodation on November 30th fails. Additionally, we find that the incidents complained of even when assumed in their entirety are not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment.
With respect to Complainant's contentions on appeal, we find that Complainant has not produced any evidence which shows that she was treated any differently than the two other employees in her unit. Regarding her claim that she was not provided the training promised to her in return for her "dropping" her EEO complaints, we find the record shows that she was provided some training but no evidence was offered which showed that she ever requested additional training or that any requests for training were denied. Further, the record shows that Complainant's request for three weeks leave was approved the day after she submitted the request, therefore, Complainant's assertion that she was not given time-off for a number of years is not supported by the record. We find that Complainant has not shown that the incidents complained of in this complaint are related to her prior EEO activity. Accordingly, we find that the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
The Agency's FAD which found that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
___1/13/15_______________
Date
1 Complainant indicated in her contentions on appeal that she "dropped" two complaints. One of them she maintains was in exchange for two weeks of additional training. She does not however reveal whether this was as a result of a settlement agreement. If Complainant believes that the Agency has violated the terms of a settlement agreement, she should contact the EEO Director in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120122933
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120122933