01a51921
07-22-2005
Mary T. Taylor, Complainant, v. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.
Mary T. Taylor v. Department of State
01A51921
July 22, 2005
.
Mary T. Taylor,
Complainant,
v.
Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51921
Agency No. DOS-F-030-04
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's December 9, 2004
decision finding no discrimination. According to the agency's decision,
complainant alleges that she was subject to a hostile work environment on
the bases of sex (female) and age (date of birth: January 29, 1947) when:
1. Beginning in December 2001, complainant's supervisor excluded
complainant from meetings that were important for complainant to attend
in order for her to satisfy a requirement on her performance plan.
On February 21, 2002, complainant's supervisor told complainant to
follow orders or her Leadership Competencies Development Initiative
(LCDI) portfolio would be removed from her management, even though
she expressed concerns about possible fraud and waste.
On May 28, 2002, complainant's supervisor informed complainant that
she would have to provide briefings to all bureaus by the end of
December 2002, even though management knew that it was an impossible
task to achieve.
On July 3, 2002, complainant's supervisor admonished complainant for
taking notes during a meeting and telling her that higher management
was dissatisfied with LCDI progress, but refused to provide specifics
of any performance deficiencies.
On May 7, 2003, complainant's supervisor did not inform complainant
of her implementation of her idea of automated "Individual Development
Plans" (IDPs) for the Foreign Service and complainant was not permitted
to participate in the subsequent implementation project.
The agency, in its decision, concluded that it asserted a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, which complainant failed
to rebut. Complainant now appeals from that decision.<1>
We find that the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. With respect to claim 1, the Division Chief,
complainant's supervisor, acknowledges that he told complainant not
to attend the meeting because he believed that the Human Resources
Specialists should focus more on their program portfolios. The Division
Chief said that he saw the meetings as a way for him to meet others in
the Department since he was a new manager. The Director of the Office
of Civil Service (the Director) reported that, although complainant may
have attended meetings prior to her supervisor's arrival, complainant
did so because the Division Chief position was vacant and the Director
could not attend the meetings.
Regarding claim 2, the Division Chief denied that he became angry
and told complainant to follow orders or he would remove her program.
The Division Chief reported that the Executive Director of the Bureau of
Human Resources had approved the distribution of the mugs after receiving
clearance and guidance from the agency's legal staff. The Division Chief
said that he objected to complainant purchasing chocolate and putting
it along with printed management sayings into the mugs. The Division
Chief stated that he felt it was a waste of productive GS-13 time.
The Division Chief said that he had no intention to remove complainant
from the LCDI portfolio.
In terms of claim 3, the Division Chief said that briefing each bureau
was a division goal, but not a performance related goal. The Division
Chief reported it would not affect complainant's evaluation if she did
not brief every bureau since the individual bureaus had the option to
receive a briefing.
With reference to claim 4, the Division Chief stated that he discussed
with complainant management's concern over the LCDI program and the
amount of time being spent on it. The Division Chief said that it was
not a discussion of complainant's personal performance. The Director
reported that the discussion was focused on whether or not the time
invested in LCDI was providing expected returns, and was not one in
which complainant's performance situation was discussed.
In relation to claim 5, the Division Chief reported that the IDPs were
part of an ongoing discussion and not included in a budget proposal as
complainant contended. Moreover, the Division Chief stated that the
IDP plan was not approved until May 2003, the same month complainant
alleges that she was given approval for her idea. The Division Chief
reported that complainant was not shut out of the process as she alleges.
The Division Chief said that the meetings were for strategic planning
purposes held at a level at which complainant would not have participated.
The Division Chief stated that he provided complainant updates on the
decision process continuously.
As to the claim of harassment, the agency noted that complainant has
not alleged any unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a nature that
is related to either her sex or age, which is typically required in
order to establish a hostile work environment; instead, complainant has
alleged a series of isolated incidents. The agency stated that these
incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level
of harassment. The agency commented that the complained of actions were a
result of complainant's inability to function within the given management
structure, confusing management procedures, or a personality conflict,
rather than any illegal discriminatory motive by management.
The Commission finds that complainant has failed to show that
the agency's reasons are pretext for discrimination. Furthermore,
complainant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that she was discriminated against on the bases of sex or age.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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), 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 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 (S0900)
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
July 22, 2005
__________________
Date
1Complainant also alleged that she was subjected to discrimination when in
2002 or 2003, management denied complainant an opportunity to participate
in a rotational assignment with an employee from another office. This
claim was dismissed for untimely EEO Counselor contact pursuant to 29
C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) by the agency in a decision dated March 22, 2004.
The agency found that complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on June
6, 2003. There is no indication in the record that complainant challenged
this issue on appeal. Although this claim is at not at issue in this
appeal, we note that complainant has not claimed that any timely incident
occurred 45-days or less prior to her initial EEO Counselor contact.