01a03850
08-15-2000
James E. Horace, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James E. Horace v. U. S. Postal Service
01A03850, 01A03822, 01A03823
August 15, 2000
.
James E. Horace,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 01A03850, 01A03822, 01A03823
Agency Nos. 4H-320-0079-00, 4H-320-0092-00, 4H-320-0087-00
DECISION
Complainant filed three timely appeals with the Commission from agency
decisions dated March 30, 2000. Through its discretion, the Commission
has consolidated these three cases. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.606).
Complainant filed three complaints on March 8, 2000. In the first
complaint (Agency No. 4H-320-0079-00), complainant claimed that
the agency discriminated against him on the basis of race when his
supervisor spoke to him in a disrespectful manner on January 11, 2000.
In his second complaint (Agency No. 4H-320-0092-00), complainant claimed
that his supervisor again spoke to him disrespectfully on January 27,
2000. In his third complaint (Agency No. 4H-320-0087-00), complainant
claimed discrimination on the bases of race, age, and reprisal, when
his supervisor purportedly manipulated a younger trainee to ask him
how much time was left to complete a task. In the third complaint,
complainant indicated that his supervisor is continuously badgering him
about how much time he takes to complete his tasks, noting that she does
not treat his co-workers in this manner.
In three separate final agency decisions dated March 30, 2000, the agency
dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim.
Upon review, the Commission finds that each of the three referenced
complaints was properly dismissed pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656
(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)).<1>
When confronted with complaints like this, the agency cannot ignore the
pattern aspect of the claims and treat them in a piecemeal fashion.
See Ferguson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05970792
(March 30, 1999) and Smith v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request
No. 05980268 (May 26, 1999). We find that a fair reading of complainant's
statements shows that complainant contends that his supervisor harassed
him and created a hostile work environment as reflected by the incidents
set forth in his complaints. Therefore, the agency should not have
treated the matters raised in the complaints in a piecemeal manner.
See Meaney v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169
(November 3, 1994) (an agency should not ignore the �pattern aspect�
of a complainant's claims and define the issues in a piecemeal manner
where an analogous theme unites the matters complained of).
However, after a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that
the complaint fails to state a claim because the three incidents that are
the subject of the instant appeal, even taken together, do not show that
complainant has been subjected to harassment that was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. Moreover, the
complaint does not otherwise challenge an unlawful employment policy or
practice.<2> See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, Request No. 05970077
(March 13, 1997).
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss complainant's complaint
is AFFIRMED.
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
August 15, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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 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 Commission has repeatedly found that remarks or comments
unaccompanied by a concrete agency action are not a direct and personal
deprivation sufficient to render an individual aggrieved for the purposes
of Title VII. See Backo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05960227 (June 10, 1996); Henry v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05940695 (February 9, 1995).