Marilou B. Cobero, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 23, 2000
01983952 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 23, 2000)

01983952

03-23-2000

Marilou B. Cobero, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Marilou B. Cobero v. United States Postal Service

01993952

March 23, 2000

Marilou B. Cobero, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal Nos. 01993952, 01981858

) Agency Nos. 1K-221-0036-98, 1K-221-0170-97

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Complainant filed two appeals with this Commission from final decisions of

the agency concerning her complaints of unlawful employment 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 with regard to

Agency No. 1K-221-0170-97 was issued on December 5, 1997. The appeal

was postmarked January 5, 1998. The final agency decision with

regard to Agency No. 1K-221-0036-98 was issued on March 6, 1998.

The appeal was postmarked April 21, 1998. Accordingly, the appeals

are timely (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified

and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), and are accepted in

accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29

C.F.R. �1614.405).<2> These appeals have been consolidated for purposes

of review.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed

all but one claim of the respective complaints on the grounds of failure

to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

Agency No. 1K-221-0170-97

On October 1, 1997, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint wherein

she claimed that she was discriminated against on the bases of her color

(not specified), race (Asian), national origin (not specified), and in

retaliation for her previous EEO activity when:

1. Management failed to do their job relative to Administrative

Procedure #91-7.

2. Management spread rumors that she faked her injury.

3. She was harassed to come back to work.

4. Management tried to set her up for improper posture.

5. Management denied her a shop steward at the reenactment of an

accident.

6. Management told "a lady" what to write on her statement.

7. An Injury Compensation Specialist failed to pay her continuation

of pay on time and withheld her paychecks for pay periods 17 and 19,

and harassed her over the telephone.

8. She was physically assaulted by a temporary clerk.

9. She was threatened by management and management failed to provide

her with a safe working environment.

10. Management is intentionally inflicting emotional stress on her.

The agency accepted claim (7) of the complaint for investigation.

Claims 1-6 and 8-10 were dismissed the complaint on the grounds of

failure to state a claim. The agency determined that complainant did

not suffer a personal loss or harm with respect to a term, condition,

or privilege of her employment. Further, the agency noted that the

employee who assaulted the complainant was terminated.

On appeal, complainant claims that she was subjected to a hostile work

environment and a conspiracy of harassment by management officials.

On August 20, 1998, the parties entered into a settlement agreement

with regard to claim (7) of the complaint. The agency agreed to treat

complainant with dignity and respect, and that no retaliation would be

taken against complainant for filing the complaint.

Agency No. 1K-221-0036-98

On February 9, 1998, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint wherein she

claimed that she had been discriminated against on the bases of her race,

color, national origin, and in reprisal for her previous activity when:

1. On November 18, 1997, an EEO Counselor provided false information

when she reported that the temporary clerk who assaulted complainant

was already terminated.

2. An Injury Compensation Specialist sent two agency supervisors to

visit complainant at her home to harass and question her about her injury.

In its final decision, the agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds

of failure to state a claim. The agency determined that complainant

failed to provide any evidence that would suggest that she suffered a

personal loss or harm with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of

her employment as a result of the alleged actions. The agency stated

that a home visitation team was developed by the District Manager.

According to the agency, the team consists of a pool of supervisors who

make visits of care to employees who have been injured.

On appeal, complainant maintains that the individual who assaulted her is

still employed by the agency. Complainant states that this individual

was convicted of assaulting her in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County,

Virginia. According to complainant, she continues to suffer from fear

of an unsafe work environment, emotional stress, physical injury, and

she has not returned to work since she was assaulted on July 31, 1997.

Complainant maintains that the agency has engaged in a pervasive pattern

of discriminatory actions against her.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(1)) provides, in relevant part, that

an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that fails to

state a claim. 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. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29

C.F.R. �1614.103); �1614.106(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 22, 1994).

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. The Court explained that 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, supra at 21-22. 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,

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.

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless

it appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts

in support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief.

The trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents

and remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to

the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim.

Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March

13, 1997).

In the present complaints, complainant claimed that she was subjected to

a hostile work environment and discriminatory harassment when agency

management failed to do its job relative to Administrative Procedure

#91-7; management spread rumors that complainant faked her injury; she

was harassed to come back to work; management tried to set her up for

improper posture; management denied her a shop steward at the reenactment

of an accident; management told "a lady" what to write on her statement;

she was physically assaulted by a temporary clerk; she was threatened

by management and management failed to provide her with a safe working

environment; management has been intentionally inflicting emotional stress

on her; an EEO Counselor provided false information when she reported

that the temporary clerk that assaulted complainant had been terminated;

and the Injury Compensation Specialist sent two agency supervisors to

visit her at her home, and to harass and question her about her injury.

Viewing these claims in the light most favorable to complainant, we find

that complainant stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC Regulations.

See Cervantes v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930303

(November 12, 1993). The alleged actions were of sufficient severity and

pervasiveness to constitute harassment and a hostile work environment.

Accordingly, the agency's decisions to dismiss claims 1-6 and 8-10 of

Agency No. 1K-221-0170-97 and the complaint in Agency No. 1K-221-0036-98

for failure to state a claim were improper and are hereby REVERSED.

Claims 1-6 and 8-10 of Agency No. 1K-221-0170-97 and the complaint in

Agency No. 1K-221-0036-98 are hereby REMANDED for further processing in

accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims in accordance with

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall consolidate both

complaints for a single investigation pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,661 (1999) (to be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.606). The agency

shall acknowledge to the complainant that it has received the remanded

and consolidated claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date

this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue to complainant a

copy of the investigative file and also shall notify complainant of the

appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the

date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved

prior to that time. If the complainant requests a final decision without

a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60)

days of receipt of complainant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant, including

the notice of consolidation, and a copy of the notice that transmits the

investigative file and notice of rights must be sent to the Compliance

Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement

of the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The complainant also has the

right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. ��1614.407, 1614.408) and 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(g).

Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on

the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled

"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. ��1614.407 and 1614.408. A

civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint

is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993).

If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.409).

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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

March 23, 2000

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:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

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 does not establish when each final decision was received by

complainant. Absent evidence to the contrary, we find that the instant

appeals were timely filed.