Dennis Beauregard, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 13, 2009
0120090081 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 13, 2009)

0120090081

02-13-2009

Dennis Beauregard, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Dennis Beauregard,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120090081

Agency No. 4B028006308

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated September 5, 2008, 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.

At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed by the

agency as a City Carrier at the Woonsocket, Rhode Island Post Office.

In a formal EEO complaint dated September 2, 2008, complainant alleged

that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of reprisal for

prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964. The agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(1) and (2), for failure to state a claim and/or untimely

EEO counselor contact. The instant appeal followed.

In its dismissal decision, the agency characterized the complaint

as asserting unlawful retaliation "when on or about May 10, 2008,

[complainant] believed [his] pay was deliberately short and pay records

were manipulated." The agency reasoned that this failed to state a claim

because complainant ultimately received the correct pay and benefits in

2007 through the grievance process, and because there was no indication

that complainant had engaged in prior protected activity. In the

alternative, the agency dismissed for untimely EEO counselor contact,

asserting that complainant's initial contact with the counselor was on

July 1, 2008, beyond the regulatory 45-day period from May 10, 2008.

Upon review, the Commission concludes that the agency incorrectly

characterized the complaint in this matter, therefore applying its

dismissal analysis incorrectly. A fair reading of the complaint, in

conjunction with the EEO Dispute Resolution Specialist's (EEO counselor's)

report reveals that in fact complainant was alleging after he told the

Postmaster on July 1, 2008, that he intended to file an EEO complaint

concerning the paycheck tampering issue, he was subjected to ongoing

retaliatory harassment. The EEO counselor's report details the alleged

harassment to include: on July 1, 2008, the Postmaster questioned

complainant about the use of unauthorized overtime; on July 2, 2008,

the Postmaster discussed complainant's street time, performed street

supervision, and conducted a road observation; on July 3, 2009, the

Postmaster notified complainant that a Letter of Warning dated April 29,

2008, would remain in his personnel file for two years despite an earlier

grievance settlement that it would be removed after three months; on July

8, 2008, he was given a pre-disciplinary interview regarding the use of

directional signals on July 2, 2008; and the Postmaster made a number

of negative comments to him, including, "Are you afraid of me?", "You're

not man enough to come any closer and get the chock block from me",

"I think you are nothing but a piece of shit and think you are a liar",

and "It's just a matter of time before you won't be getting a paycheck."

Shortly thereafter complainant was out of work for on sick leave (FMLA)

from July 10 - August 15, 2008. 1

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 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. In addition, under

the Commission's broad view of reprisal, a complainant need only allege

that he suffered harassment that was based upon a retaliatory motive

and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from

engaging in protected activity. See EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8,

"Retaliation," No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998), at 8-15. 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.

Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March

13, 1997).

In applying this standard, we find that complainant has set forth

an actionable claim of retaliatory harassment. The EEO counselor's

report reveals that he clearly alleged that immediately after he

told the Postmaster he was going to file an EEO complaint about the

pay issues, the Postmaster engaged in campaign of ongoing harassment,

threatened discipline, revoked a grievance settlement to remove a letter

of warning from his record, and made numerous intimidating and insulting

comments. Together this is sufficient to state a claim of retaliatory

harassment/hostile work environment that was timely raised.

To the extent complainant was also attempting to raise his pay claims in

this complaint, we agree with the agency that these were untimely raised

as the most recent occurrence, on May 10, 2008, was more than 45 days

before complainant's initial EEO counselor contact. This untimeliness

would not be a basis for dismissal if the paycheck issues were part of

the alleged pattern of harassment as the Supreme Court has held that a

complainant alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if

all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice

and at least one act falls within the filing period. See National

Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (June 10, 2002).

However, in this case we do not find that the pay issues are linked to

the harassment, as the protected activity (telling the Postmaster he

was going to file an EEO complaint about the pay issues) occurred after

May 10 and involved a different management official. To this extent,

we affirm the agency's dismissal of the pay issues (occurring May 10,

2008 and earlier) as untimely raised.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the agency's dismissal of the complaint and

REMAND it to the agency for further processing in accordance with the

following Order.

ORDER (E0408)

The agency is ordered to process the remanded claim (retaliatory

harassment/hostile work environment) in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �

1614.108 et seq. 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 (K0408)

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 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (M1208)

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 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 (R0408)

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 (Z1008)

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

February 13, 2009

__________________

Date

1 We do note that complainant also alleged pay tampering in January

and May 2008, as well as on eight occasions from January 2005 through

July 2005.

??

??

??

??

2

0120090081

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120090081