0120160414
03-09-2016
Giselle W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Giselle W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160414
Agency No. 1J482004815
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed to this Commission from the Agency's September 28, 2015 dismissal of 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Small Package and Bundle Sorter (SPBS) Clerk, Grade II-6, at the Agency's GWY Main Post Office in Detroit, Michigan.
On September 18, 2015, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (Female), age (unspecified in the record), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when:
1. on multiple unspecified dates beginning sometime after April 26, 2015, her supervisor stared at her;
2. on May 25 and 26, 2015, she was moved from her assigned area; and
3. on May 29, 2015, in a meeting with her supervisor and manager, her supervisor told her to not to shorten her lunch in order to "punch out" (leave) early.
Complainant attributes her supervisor's alleged reprisal to an April 26, 2015 letter she sent to the Agency's Detroit District Manager. In relevant part, it states, "[u]nfortunately [the Agency] has not been exposed for their harassment, retaliation of employees, crossing of crafts and falsifying of mail. I believe that day will come." Below her signature, Complainant listed a total of fourteen Agency, local, and nationally elected officials, as well as offices within this Commission that would receive copies of the letter. The two Agency officials named in the instant complaint, Complainant's supervisor and manager, are not on the list.
On June 8, 2015 Complainant sent another letter to the Detroit District Manager, stating, "I noticed after writing the [April 26, 2015] letter, my supervisor is harassing me." Complainant recounts Claim 1, alleging that her supervisor's "continuous staring" made her "very uncomfortable." She also discusses the context of Claim 3, providing that on May 29, 2015, Complainant met with her supervisor and manager to address her "concerns." During the meeting Complainant's supervisor instructed her not to shorten her lunch in order to punch out early. Complainant agreed to adhere to her schedule, but asked her supervisor to inform all employees to do the same. Complainant alleges that her supervisor responded that he did not have to inform anyone but her, causing her to believe she had been singled out.
The Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim on the bases of her race, sex and age because Complainant failed to allege that she suffered harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. See Diaz v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). 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. Thus, not all claims of harassment are actionable. As noted by the Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998): "simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the 'terms and conditions of employment'." Following a review of the record, we find that in the instant case, viewing the allegations together and assuming they occurred as alleged, Complainant fails to state a viable claim of a discriminatory hostile work environment. The actions alleged, without more, are simply insufficiently severe or pervasive to state a valid claim.
Regarding complainant's claim of reprisal, the Commission has stated that adverse actions need not qualify as "ultimate employment actions" or materially affect the terms and conditions of employment to constitute retaliation. Lindsey v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05980410 (Nov. 4, 1999) Instead, the Commission reviews reprisal claims with a broad view of coverage. It is the Commission's policy to protect complainants from any retaliatory discrimination that is "reasonably likely to deter Complainant or others from engaging in protected activity." Maclin v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120070788 (Mar. 29, 2007). After a careful review of the record, we find that the allegations raised by Complainant do not rise to a level that would likely deter an individual from engaging in protected activity.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0815)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 9, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120160414
4
0120160414