Gulam M. Dean, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest areas), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 4, 2000
01984352 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 4, 2000)

01984352

02-04-2000

Gulam M. Dean, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest areas), Agency.


Gulam M. Dean v. United States Postal Service

01984352

February 4, 2000

Gulam M. Dean, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01984352

)

William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 4H-3350-154-97

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

(Southeast/Southwest areas), )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Gulam M. Dean (complainant) filed an appeal with this Commission from a

final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency) concerning

his 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.<1> Complainant's claim of discrimination is

based upon his race (Indian), color (brown), religion (Muslim), and

national origin (India), when he was allegedly subjected to a hostile

work environment at the agency's St. Petersburg, Florida Open Air Station

(Open Air Station) from December 1996 through March 1997. The appeal

is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

BACKGROUND

Complainant first contacted an EEO counselor on March 21, 1997, and

subsequently filed a formal EEO complaint on June 18, 1997. Complainant

alleged with the EEO counselor, and in his formal complaint, that he was

harassed by his co-workers: (1) from mid-1992 through November, 1996

at the agency's St. Petersburg, Florida Crossroads Station (Crossroads

Station); and (2) from December 1996 through March 1997 at the Open

Air Station.

On September 17, 1997, the agency issued a final decision (FAD) which

dismissed, as untimely, complainant's allegation of harassment during

the years 1992 through November, 1996. Complainant thereafter filed a

timely appeal. The Commission vacated and remanded the FAD and ordered

the agency to: (1) issue a new FAD stating why the dismissed allegations

do not constitute a continuing violation; or (2) issue a notice

that the agency will continue processing the entire claim. See Dean

v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01977045 (July 17, 1998). On August 21, 1998,

the agency issued a second FAD dismissing again, as untimely, the portion

of appellant's complaint that alleged harassment from 1992 through 1996.

This time, in accordance with the Commission's July 17, 1998 decision,

the FAD explained why complainant's allegations of harassment from 1992

through 1996 did not fall within the continuing violation exception.

Complainant did not appeal this decision.

Following an investigation on the accepted portion of complainant's

complaint, the agency notified complainant of his right to request

a hearing. Complainant failed to request a hearing and, accordingly, on

April 27, 1998, the agency issued a final decision of no discrimination.

It is this agency decision which complainant now appeals.

During the relevant time period, complainant was employed as a

Transitional Employee Letter Carrier in the St. Petersburg, Florida,

Post Office. Complainant affirmed that from mid-1992 through November

1996, he worked at the Crossroads Station and faced hostility from his

co-workers. Without specifying names or dates of particular incidents of

harassment, complainant affirmed that his co-workers made the following

statements: (1) "go back to India;" (2) "you should open a 7-11 store;"

(3) "transitional employees are taking our overtime;" and (4) all

transitional employees should be fired." Complainant also affirmed that

he was transferred to the Open Air Station in November 1996 and continued

to be similarly harassed by his co-workers at that facility. In addition,

complainant affirmed, without specifics, that his supervisors should

have been aware of the harassment since he believed it was very obvious.

Lastly, complainant alleged that in October 1995 he received a letter

from the president of the union which accused complainant of calling

union members "slugs." Complainant also alleged that in March 1997,

he was being pressured by the union to become a member.<2>

In response to complainant's allegations, the manager of the Crossroads

Stations (RMO1) affirmed that complainant brought to his attention

one instance where he had a verbal altercation with a co-worker (C1).

RMO1 was told that C1 called complainant "Ghandi." RMO1 affirmed that

he immediately instructed C1 not to antagonize complainant. RMO1 further

affirmed that he assumed that the name-calling stopped since complainant

never complained again about C1 or any other co-worker.

Two other managers were interviewed and provided affidavits that they

had no information regarding any alleged harassment against complainant.

In addition, these managers affirmed that complainant never informed

them of any alleged harassment.

FINAL AGENCY DECISION

The agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or religion

because he failed to show how individuals outside his protected groups

received more favorable treatment relative to the work environment.

In addition, the agency noted that complainant was specifically asked

by the EEO investigator to provide particular instances of the alleged

harassment (ie., what was said, who said it, and what management

officials were notified of the harassment), yet he failed to provide

such information.

The agency also noted that RMO1 explained that on one occasion complainant

complained about C1. RMO1 took immediate corrective action which, to his

knowledge, was effective in resolving the matter. RMO1 further affirmed

that complainant never again complained about C1 or any other co-workers.

In addition, the Manager at the South Annex Station (RMO2) also affirmed

that complainant never complained about harassment during the time that

he worked at that location.

Lastly, the agency also noted that complainant failed to present any

evidence of pretext.

ANALYSIS

While we find that the agency improperly analyzed this matter

as a disparate treatment claim, rather than a harassment claim,

we, nevertheless, agree with the agency's ultimate finding of no

discrimination. Specifically, we find that the complainant failed to meet

his burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he was subjected to

severe, pervasive, hostile and unwelcome conduct. As the agency noted,

complainant was unable to identify a single co-worker who allegedly

harassed him. In addition, complainant could not describe a single

incident of alleged harassment. While complainant made vague and general

allegations of harassment, the evidence of record shows that complainant

complained to his supervisor on one occasion and his supervisor took

prompt remedial action. Accordingly, we find that the evidence is

insufficient to support a finding of discriminatory harassment.

On appeal, complainant generally restates arguments previously made

and discussed herein above. Complainant also argues that his union

complaint was improperly excluded from his EEO complaint. However, since

complainant never alleged that the poor treatment he received from union

officials was based on discriminatory motives (e.g. race, national origin,

religion, color), but rather, inter alia, his transitional employee

status, such allegation is not within the Commission's jurisdiction.

Lastly, complainant argues that the EEO investigator should have

interviewed his co-workers. While we find the record minimally

developed, we, nevertheless, find the record appropriate given the

little information provided by the complainant. As appellant offered

no additional persuasive evidence to support his claims on appeal, we

discern no basis to reverse the agency's finding of no discrimination.

Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision.

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:

2/4/00

_______________ _________________________________

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 complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on __________________.

By: _________________________________

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 record indicates that the EEO counselor referred complainant's

union-related complaints to the NLRB, having found such complaints

outside the jurisdiction of the EEO process.