01a51685
03-29-2005
Ethel B. Rice, Complainant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Ethel B. Rice v. Social Security Administration
01A51685
March 29, 2005
.
Ethel B. Rice,
Complainant,
v.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51685
Agency No. SSA-04-0323
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's November 10, 2004
decision dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). According to the agency's decision,
complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race when:
On March 12, 2004, the Management Support Specialist (MSS) attempted
to alienate her and her fellow Special Disability Workload (SDW) Cadre
co-workers from the rest of the office by attacking her character in
an email. The email specifically states that �the SDW cadre is not
pulling their weight� . . . �I hope they all go back to their original
offices and Ethel retires . . . I hope I can break the (T-2) unit from
that group.� The email was left in view of in the employee area of
the office on an unsecured printer.
The MSS called a meeting with the SDW Cadre (3 African American females)
and informed them in an authoritative and condescending manner that
they had to do as she instructed and refused to accept questions.
When they protested, she reminded them that she was the supervisor with
authority to direct and control the work and her instructions needed
to be followed.
When the MSS needs an opinion on a technical problem or question,
she will ask a SDW Cadre member for an opinion, and then call the
Hayward Office, where the Technical Experts are all White, to validate
the answer.
The MSS ignores the complainant's suggestions to improve workflow and
case management and cites the Hayward Office as the correct way of
performing work.
The MSS and the Assistance Director Manager (ADM) often work together
to undermine the Oakland SDW Cadre. The ADM did not like the national
spreadsheet for tracking SDW case and obtained a local spreadsheet
from another Cadre that would allow the MSS and ADM greater control
over the SDW Cadre.
When the MSS was out of the office, the SDW Cadre organized the workload
alphabetically to keep better accountability and improve workflow.
When the MSS returned to the office, the Cadre was instructed to
reorganize the workload numerically and told to �Just do it that way
and don't ask questions.�
The MSS and ADM constantly sabotage the work of the SDW Cadre by
blocking or withholding important Regional Office emails from them
regarding technical and processing issues. Only the Cadre member have
the skills necessary to read and understand the emails, but the MSS and
ADM do not trust the Cadre's ability to read and interpret the emails.
It is very noticeable how the MSS and the ADM treat Whites in the office
as compared to African Americans. They will speak and hold pleasant
conversations and discuss work procedures with White employees; in
contrast, they walk past the Cadre members and look the other away to
avoid speaking.
We agree with the agency that the complainant's claim of harassment
(claims a-h) is insufficient to state a claim of harassment. The
incidents taken together, are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to
state a claim of harassment. Therefore, we find that the complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's
complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
March 29, 2005
__________________
Date