Gloria J. Hatcher, Complainant,v.Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 9, 2000
01985767 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 9, 2000)

01985767

02-09-2000

Gloria J. Hatcher, Complainant, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Agency.


Gloria J. Hatcher v. Department of Health & Human Services

01985767

February 9, 2000

Gloria J. Hatcher, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985767

v. ) Agency No. NIH-0423-95

)

Donna E. Shalala, )

Secretary, )

Department of Health & Human Services, )

Agency. )

_______________________________________)

DECISION

On July 22, 1998, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission)

received an appeal from Gloria J. Hatcher (hereinafter referred to as

complainant) from a final decision of the agency concerning her complaint

of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.<1> The final agency decision

was received by complainant's attorney on June 29, 1998. Accordingly,

the appeal is timely filed, and is accepted in accordance with the

provisions of EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

The issue on appeal is whether complainant proved, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race

(African-American), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was

issued a letter of reprimand on November 8, 1994.<2>

Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint in March 1996, raising the

above-referenced allegation of discrimination. Thereafter, the agency

conducted an investigation of the matter at issue, and notified the

complainant of her right to either an administrative hearing or a final

agency decision in the matter. Complainant failed to timely respond

to the notice, and the agency issued a final decision dated June 23,

1998, finding that complainant had not been subjected to discrimination.

It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

At the time of the matter at issue, the complainant was working as a

secretary at the agency's National Institutes of Health. On November 8,

1994, the complainant received a letter of reprimand charging her with

"unacceptable conduct" based upon three incidents. The complainant's

supervisor indicated that on September 29, 1994, the complainant

exhibited inappropriate and disrespectful behavior after she denied the

complainant's request to attend a lecture. Additionally, on the same

date, the complainant made a comment to a co-worker (Employee 1) which

was considered threatening. Specifically, while Employee 1 was getting

coffee, the complainant commented that slaves used to spit in or poison

their master's food. Finally, on October 12, 1994, the complainant made

an obscene gesture to another employee (Employee 2) under the guise of

having Employee 2 examine her finger for a cut.

The complainant's supervisor averred that the complainant had,

in the past, exhibited anger and hostility toward other employees.

The supervisor noted that, during a May 1994 meeting, the complainant's

representative and an EEO Officer commented on the complainant's

hostile tone and manner. The supervisor stated that, on September 29,

the complainant angrily interrogated her regarding her decision not to

allow the complainant to attend a lecture, despite not having provided

specific information concerning the content thereof. The complainant

also informed her supervisor that attendance at the lecture was a right

not a privilege. The supervisor noted that Employees 1 and 2 were upset

by the complainant's comment and gesture. The supervisor stated that

she discussed the matters with the Deputy Personnel Officer, who advised

her that the incidents were sufficiently egregious to warrant a written

reprimand. The Deputy Personnel Officer confirmed that the complainant's

supervisor consulted him with regard to the matters, stating that there

was no evidence that the supervisor or Employees 1 and 2 precipitated

the incidents. The Deputy Personnel Officer also noted that the Labor

Management Consulting Team concurred with the decision to issue a letter

of reprimand.

The complainant denied engaging in inappropriate behavior. She stated

that it was her supervisor who was hostile during the September 29

meeting. Further, the complainant indicated that the comment she

made to Employee 1, which occurred during a friendly discussion of

African-American history, was taken out of context. With regard to

Employee 2, the complainant noted that she did in fact have a cut on

her middle finger, which she displayed in an attempt to get Employee 2

to leave her work area.

Employee 1did not recall engaging in a conversation with the complainant

on September 29 prior to the complainant making the above-referenced

comment. He described the incident as being disconcerting, stating that

he questioned the safety of his food and drink. Employee 2 indicated

that while she was discussing a letter she had asked the complainant to

finalize, the complainant suddenly displayed her middle finger and asked

Employee 2 if she saw a cut. Employee 2 stated that the complainant had,

on a number of occasions, laughed at her and pointed a finger at her.

The complaint herein presents the issue of whether the agency subjected

the complainant to disparate treatment on the bases of her race and prior

EEO activity. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),

provides an analytical framework for proving employment discrimination

in cases in which disparate treatment is alleged. First, complainant

must establish a prima facie case by presenting enough evidence to raise

an inference of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802.

The agency may rebut complainant's prima facie case by articulating

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, and if the agency

does so, complainant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that the agency's reasons are a pretext for discrimination. Id.

The Commission notes that while the agency stated, in part, that

complainant failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not

show that she was treated differently than similarly situated employees,

complainant must only present evidence which, if unrebutted, would support

an inference that the agency's actions resulted from discrimination.

O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (1996);

Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caters Corp.,

EEOC Notice No. 915.002, n. 4 (September 18, 1996). Nevertheless, in

appropriate circumstances, when the agency has established legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment decision, the trier of fact

may dispense with the prima facie inquiry and proceed to the ultimate

stage of the analysis, that is, whether the complainant has proven by

preponderant evidence that the agency's explanations were a pretext for

actions motivated by prohibited discriminatory animus. See United States

Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983).

In the case at hand, the agency stated that the complainant was issued the

letter of reprimand because of three incidents of unacceptable conduct.

As stated, the Deputy Personnel Officer found no evidence that the

complainant's supervisor, Employee 1, or Employee 2 precipitated the

events cited. Complainant has not shown that her supervisor acted

with discriminatory animus in issuing her the letter of reprimand.

Therefore, the Commission finds that complainant failed to prove,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was subjected to race or

reprisal discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Based upon a review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons, it is

the decision of the Commission to affirm the agency's final decision of

no discrimination based on race and prior EEO activity.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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:

02-09-00

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to petitioner, petitioner's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_________________________ __________________________

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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.

2The complainant withdrew sex (female) as a basis for discrimination

during the investigation.