0120123447
02-06-2013
Joceline Anugwolu, Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Joceline Anugwolu,
Complainant,
v.
John M. McHugh,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120123447
Agency No. ARMEADE12JUN02389
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision (Dismissal) dated August 17, 2012, dismissing 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Dental Sterilization Technician at the Agency's EPES Dental Clinic facility in Fort Meade, Maryland. On July 26, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American) and sex (female) when:
1. On June 4, 2012, Complainant's Supervisor (S) deliberately withheld vital information from her that would have helped her achieve a higher performance appraisal; did not take time and effort to give Complainant a usable check list; S acted hurried and rushed and treated Complainant as if she were bothersome and an annoyance, and failed to explain the things needed to upgrade Complainant's appraisal.1
The Agency dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim, finding that Complainant had incurred no harm from the alleged actions.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). When the complainant does not allege he or she is aggrieved within the meaning of the regulations, the agency shall dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
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. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment, such as the complaint at issue here, a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.
On appeal, Complainant describes her frustrations with management and argues that she has been placed in an impossible position because she is "required to obtain mandatory training but yet is denied [such training] because of 'budgetary restraints.'" Complainant's Appeal Brief.
Following a review of the record we find that Complainant has not shown she incurred a harm or loss from the alleged actions. See Diaz. Nor has she shown that she was subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving her protected classes, that the harassment complained of was based on her statutorily protected classes, and that the harassment had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with her work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. See McCleod v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01963810 (August 5, 1999) (citing Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982).
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we find that Complainant has failed to state a claim and we AFFIRM the Agency's Dismissal.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 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 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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
February 6, 2013
__________________
Date
1 On appeal, Complainant withdrew a second claim concerning her classification as a GS-05 instead of a GS-06.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120123447
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120123447