0120141850
10-07-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120141850
Agency No. 1G-701-0018-14
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated March 4, 2014, dismissing his complaint of unlawful 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 Maintenance Mechanic at the Agency's Baton Rouge General Mail Facility, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
On February 1, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to harassment and discrimination on the basis of race (African-American) when Complainant became aware, on December 18, 2013, that he had been discriminated against by management. Complainant alleged that he believed his life and job was put in jeopardy because of an employee, who was known to management to harbor animosity towards black people. His complaint seeks the "removal of all disciplinary actions," and make-whole relief, including restoration of "all money and fines" and compensatory damages.
Complainant named his supervisor (the Supervisor Maintenance Operations) as one of the three officials responsible for the actions. He named two other management officials: the Manager, Maintenance (second-level manager) and the Manager of District Operations.
The record provides documentation that, on October 25, 2013, Complainant was involved in an altercation with another employee, after Complainant tried to enter a room to get his clipboard. Another employee blocked Complainant from entering the room. Complainant told the employee to get out of his way. The employee then stated, "Boy, we don't want you in here." Complainant responded, "Who you calling "Boy?" The employee stated to Complainant, "I will kick your nigger ass." Another employee stepped between the two employees. Complainant denied saying that he would "bop [the other employee] on the head." Complainant told management that he believed the employee who initially blocked his entrance was a racist. Thereafter, Complainant's supervisor found Complainant's conduct to be "unacceptable." The supervisor placed Complainant in an off-duty status (Emergency Placement). The record does not show that any action was taken with regard to the employee who initially blocked Complainant's entrance and called him a racial slur.
Complainant was interviewed by the Postal Inspection Service. The record does not show that any action was taken by the Postal Inspection Service against Complainant or the other employee.
On March 4, 2014, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency reasoned that Complainant "did not expound on this issue by specifying how [Complainant was] discriminated against or what exactly happened to make [Complainant] feel [his] job and life were in jeopardy." The Agency found his complaint "to be vague" and "lacking the required specificity". The Agency stated that it advised Complainant of his obligation to be specific.
The Agency dismissed his complaint, finding that Complainant's complaint was in the nature of a generalized grievance which did not identify some harm which specifically affected Complainant as a result of the alleged discriminatory practice. The Agency acknowledged that the claims were the result of "actions" by his supervisor. The Agency stated, "although it may be that [Complainant was] unhappy with the actions of [his] Supervisor," Title VII and the EEO laws are not intended as a general civility code. The Agency further reasoned, "There is no persuasive evidence in the record that Complainant was subjected to any adverse employment action or denied any entitlement in relation to a term, condition or privilege of employment as a result of the matter raised in his complaint.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Failure 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, 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. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
Generally, the Commission has held that an agency should not dismiss a complaint when it has sufficient information upon which to base adjudication. Further, the Commission has held that where, as here, a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, the claim of harassment may survive if it alleges conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). We find that Complainant's race allegations are sufficient to state a claim of a hostile work environment. The Agency was aware of the issuance of the disciplinary actions, placement in off duty status, the loss of pay, by the named management officials. These actions occurred within the 45 days preceding Complainant's EEO contact.
Nevertheless, the Agency looked at the allegations as a vague, single day event, instead of treating these events as incidents of the claim of continuing harassment. Thus, we find that the Agency acted improperly by treating matters raised in Complainant's complaint in a piecemeal manner. See Meaney v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169 (Nov. 3, 1994) (an agency should not ignore the "pattern aspect" of a complainant's claims and define the issues in a piecemeal manner where an analogous theme unites the matter complained of).
In the instant case, we find that management was aware of the underlying facts to have permitted the agency to investigate the claims and to permit adjudication on the merits. A review of the record indicates that Complainant had been called a "boy" and referred to with the N word. On December 18, 2013, Complainant was listed as being on unscheduled annual leave in lieu of sick leave. Prior to that time, he had been placed on off-duty status and placed on leave without pay. He named specific individuals and claimed harassment on the basis of race. The information provided on Complainant's claims was sufficient to identify the specific management actions, the relevant timeframes, and the responsible management officials. This is sufficient information to permit management witnesses to respond to Complainant's allegations. See Hearl v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120082505 (July 28, 2008). Whether or not these statements by Complainant provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of discrimination can be addressed in an adjudication of the merits of his complaint.
Taken as a whole, we find that Complainant has shown an injury or harm to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. See Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Upon review, the Commission finds that Complainant's complaint was improperly dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint. We REMAND the complaint to the Agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 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 a 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 (K0610)
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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
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 tends 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 (R0610)
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 (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
October 7, 2014
__________________
Date
2
0120141850
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120141850