0120112327
03-21-2012
Dennis H. Geoghagan, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Dennis H. Geoghagan,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112327
Agency No. 4H-320-0077-10
DECISION
On March 30, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s March
9, 2011, final decision concerning his 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Postmaster at the Agency’s facility in Port St. Joe, Florida.
On October 4, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of his race (Native
American), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
when since June 16, 2010, he has been subjected to a hostile work
environment with respect to staffing and overtime matters.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance
with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. On appeal, Complainant reiterates his contention that he was
subjected to harassment and alleges that the Agency made numerous factual
errors with respect to the job titles of various management officials.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de
novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614,
at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record
without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous
decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee’s
race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or religion
is unlawful, if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive. Wibstad
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972699 (August 14,
1998); Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077
(March 13, 1997). A single incident or group of isolated incidents
will generally not be regarded as discriminatory harassment unless
the conduct is severe. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1358
(11th Cir. 1982). Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe to
trigger a violation of the anti-discrimination laws must be determined
by looking at all of the circumstances, including the frequency of
the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically
threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it
unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Harris
v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993); Enforcement
Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002
(March 8, 1994) at 3, 6. The harassers’ conduct should be evaluated
from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person in the victim's
circumstances. Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
Here, Complainant alleges that the Manager, Post Office Operations (M1)
attacked his integrity in email correspondence, inquired about reducing
the staffing at his facility, did not respond to his inquiries in a timely
manner, and refused him permission to borrow staff from another facility.
We find that even assuming the Agency’s actions occurred as alleged,
they amount to no more than the ordinary workplace tribulations and do
not rise to the level of actionable harassment. Additionally, we note
that in his affidavit, when asked why he believed M1 had subjected him
to unlawful discrimination, Complainant stated that it was because she
was “intimidated by [him] and [his] knowledge of the Postal Service”
and that he was aware she had performed poorly in her interviews and
has only “kept her job because she was a black female.” Complainant
failed to proffer any evidence, however, to show that the actions alleged
were motivated by discriminatory animus toward his race or sex, or were
in reprisal for his prior EEO activity. Finally, we note that, with
respect to Complainant’s contentions on appeal, any misidentification
of the position titles of various management officials in the report
of investigation amounts to harmless error and in no manner changes the
analysis or final disposition of the complaint.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.
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
March 21, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120112327
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120112327