01992861
08-29-2000
Debra M. Emerich, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Debra M. Emerich v. Department of the Air Force
01992861
August 29, 2000
.
Debra M. Emerich,
Complainant,
v.
F. Whitten Peters,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01992861
Agency No. 9VIM99042
DECISION
Debra M. Emerich (complainant) filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated January 27, 1999 dismissing
her 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The appeal
is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). In her complaint, complainant alleged that
she was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (White), color
(white) and disability (reactive airways) when, on October 29, 1998,
a co-worker made malicious, derogatory and unfounded racial statements
against her, which embarrassed and humiliated her in front of her other
co-workers. The statements included such comments as �lily white world,�
�sitting on your white a�,� and �I'll kick your white a� if you talk
about my overtime.�
The agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. Section 1614.107(a)(1)) , for failing to state a claim.
Specifically, the agency concluded that complainant did not suffer a
loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment.
On appeal, complainant contends that she was �totally offended, humiliated
and threatened� by the comments and that certain witnesses to the incident
were not interviewed. In response, the agency reiterates that complainant
did not allege an action that affected a term, condition, or privilege
of employment. The agency goes on to argue that the complaint also fails
to state a claim of harassment, noting that one incident of inappropriate
comments is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile
environment.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part,
that an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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;
� 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. See Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Here, complainant does
not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term,
condition or privilege of employment. It is possible that the complaint
nonetheless states a claim of harassment.
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. See 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).
The claim in the case at hand involves an isolated incident in which a
co-worker made a limited number of derogatory comments to complainant.
Such conduct is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state a claim
of harassment.
Accordingly, the agency's dismissal of the complaint for failure to
state a claim was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED.
As a final matter, however, the Commission notes that the use of racial
epithets by individuals of any race is reprehensible, and should not
be condoned by the agency. See Hubbert v. Department of the Army, EEOC
Request No. 05910133 (March 19, 1991); Criner v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05880097 (July 21, 1988). The agency is reminded that
pervasive use of racial epithets could create a hostile environment in
violation of Title VII, and the agency should take whatever counseling
or training actions it deems necessary to ensure that the use of racial
epithets ceases. Id.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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
August 29, 2000
__________________
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 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.