Edward Cordoves, Complainant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 22, 2000
01980393 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 22, 2000)

01980393

09-22-2000

Edward Cordoves, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Edward Cordoves v. Department of the Navy,

01980393

September 22, 2000

.

Edward Cordoves,

Complainant,

v.

Richard J. Danzig,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01980393

Agency No. DON-95-62472-018

Hearing No. 160-96-8280X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts the complainant's

appeal from the agency's final decision in the above-entitled matter.<1>

Complainant filed a complaint in which he claimed that on May 15, 1995,

a training officer directed a racial slur at him, in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e,

et. seq. The agency investigated the complaint and referred it to an

Administrative Judge, who recommended a finding of no discrimination,

without holding a hearing. The agency adopted the AJ's recommendation

as its final decision, from which complainant now appeals.

On May 15, 1995, in the presence of his supervisor, complainant got

into an argument with a training officer over the use of a police dog

in car stops. The supervisor stated that he observed complainant engage

in provocative behavior during the confrontation, and that the training

officer responded by calling complainant a �spic.� The supervisor

issued letters of caution to both complainant and the training officer.

In his letter to the training officer, the supervisor noted that he heard

the training officer, �state to [complainant] racial epithets along

with foul language.� He also warned the training officer that using

racial epithets would not be tolerated from anyone within the command.

Investigative Report, p. 28.

The Commission has held that, unless the use of a racial slur is either

severe and/or pervasive, such that it creates a hostile work environment,

it will not generally rise to the level of discriminatory harassment.

See Backo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960227 (June

10, 1996); Brooks v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950484

(June 25, 1996). In this case, the use of this slur appears to be an

isolated incident. The supervisor took immediate corrective action,

and there are no indications in the record that complainant suffered any

harassment or further repercussions as a result of his quarrel with the

training officer. We therefore agree with the AJ that this was a single

incident and did not rise to the level of discriminatory harassment.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision

because the preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that

discrimination occurred.

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

09-22-00

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.