0120112967
10-17-2011
Lisa Y. Coffman, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.
Lisa Y. Coffman,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112967
Agency No. 4G-770-0073-11
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's
final decision dated March 24, 2011, dismissing a formal 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
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Rural Clerk at the
Agency’s East Houston Station facility in Houston, Texas.
On March 10, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint. Therein,
Complainant claimed that she was the victim of unlawful employment
discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
between December 6, 2010 and January 13, 2011, as well as on March 2,
2011, management has refused to honor requests for, or delayed, her
representation of carriers in the EEO process; not properly allocated
official time; when released to represent carriers, she was not treated
with dignity and respect; and accused of disturbing the workroom floor
and improper conduct.
In its March 24, 2011 final decision, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
claim that management refused to honor her requests to represent other
carriers in the EEO complaint process for lack of standing. The Agency
further dismissed Complainant’s claims that she was not treated with
dignity and respect, and accused of disturbing the workroom floor and
improper conduct for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.107(a)(1). Specifically, the Agency determined that Complainant
failed to show she suffered a personal loss or harm to a term, condition
or privilege of her employment. The Agency further found that the
alleged acts did not rise the level of harassment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
With respect to Complainant’s claim that management has refused to
honor her requests for or delayed her representation of other carriers
in the EEO process and not properly allocated official time, we find
that the Agency properly dismissed this claim. If a Complainant is an
employee of an Agency and she designates another employee of the Agency
as her representative, the representative shall have a reasonable amount
of time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and respond to
Agency and EEOC requests for information. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.605(b).
We have consistently held that when a representative claiming reprisal
discrimination raises the issue of being denied official time to represent
another employee in the EEO process, the issue is properly raised by that
Complainant, not the representative. See Louie v. Department of Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 0120093128 (January 13, 2010); Kessinger v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0120081578 (February 1, 2010). In the
instant claim, because Complainant is the representative for a fellow
carrier in a separate EEO matter and was not requesting official time
for her own EEO case, this claim is properly raised by the represented
Complainant herself. For that reason, we find that Complainant does
not have standing to raise this claim.
Complainant contends further that when she was released to represent
carriers, she was not treated with dignity and respect and was accused
of disturbing the workroom floor and improper conduct. In Harris
v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme Court
held that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the Complainant’s employment.
An “objectively hostile or abusive work environment [is created when]
a reasonable person would find [it] hostile or abusive,” and the
Complainant subjectively perceives it as such. Harris, at 21-22.
Where a complaint does not challenge an Agency action regarding a specific
term, condition or privilege of employment, a claim of harassment is
actionable only if the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the Complainant’s employment. Id.
at 21. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that Complainant cannot prove a set of
facts in support of the claim which would entitle Complainant to relief.
Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March
13, 1997). The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing
incidents and remarks in the light most favorable to the Complainant,
and determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim. Id.
The Agency properly dismissed Complainant’s claims that when she was
released to represent carriers, she was not treated with dignity and
respect, and was accused of disturbing the workroom floor and improper
conduct. Even taking Complainant’s allegations as true, we do not
find that these claims rise to the level of a hostile or abusive work
environment. Title VII is not a civility code. The statute forbids
“only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions
of the victim’s employment.” Onacle v. Sundowner Offshore Servs.,
Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998). We find that this activity does not rise
to the level of harassment, and these claims were properly dismissed.
The Agency’s final decision dismissing the instant formal complaint
was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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
October 17, 2011
__________________
Date
2
01-2011-2967
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120112967
5
0120112967