Dawn M. Castillo, Complainant,v.Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 30, 2000
01990040 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 30, 2000)

01990040

11-30-2000

Dawn M. Castillo, Complainant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Dawn M. Castillo v. Social Security Administration

01990040

November 30. 2000

.

Dawn M. Castillo,

Complainant,

v.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01990040

Agency No. 98-0571-SSA

DECISION

Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was

properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).<1>

In a complaint dated July 9, 1998, complainant claims that she was

subjected to harassment due to a hostile work environment, based

on religion and sex. In its decision dismissing the complaint, the

agency sets forth the following incidents as evidence of complainant's

harassment claim:

On March 19, 1998, a co-worker informed complainant that a supervisor

made a false statement about her during a unit meeting;

On May 27, 1998, a supervisor revealed confidential information during a

meeting when she disclosed that four employees had filed EEO complaints

and that she (the supervisor) discussed the complaints with an EEO

Counselor; and,

On June 12, 1998, a supervisor ordered complainant to read her e-mail,

and threatened her with disciplinary action if she failed to do so.

Review of the record discloses that in addition to the above incidents,

complainant also claims that because of her sex and religion, she was

shunned by her supervisor and ostracized by her co-workers. As evidence,

complainant indicates that these individuals routinely exclude her

by having lunch together and speaking Spanish in her presence; and,

that her immediate supervisor does not speak to her in the mornings.

On appeal, complainant further argues that the supervisor's statement

about the four EEO complaints, as identified in claim 2, creates a

�chilling effect� on the EEO process.

The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 because even if proven to be true, the incidents

described by complainant, considered together, are not sufficiently

severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Moreover,

the complaint does not otherwise challenge an unlawful employment policy

or practice. See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, Request No. 05970077

(March 13, 1997).

Regarding claim 2 and complainant's contention of a �chilling effect� on

the use of the EEO process, the Commission determines that complainant

fails to produce any evidence that the statement at issue actually

deterred her or her co-workers from engaging in the EEO process.

Furthermore, it does not appear that complainant was involved in any

manner in the four referenced EEO complaints. Accordingly, we conclude

complainant failed to state a claim regarding claim 2.

However, the Commission reminds the agency that restraint of or

interference with an individual's protected EEO activity is prohibited

by Title VII. See also 29 C.F.R. �1614.103(a). Accordingly, the

Commission cautions the agency against engaging in acts or making

statements which give the appearance of interference with the EEO process

or might have a "chilling effect" on an individual's right to challenge

alleged discrimination.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the agency's final decision

dismissing complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

November 30, 2000

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

______________________________

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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.