0120161308
05-10-2016
Merideth C.,1 Complainant, v. Daniel M. Tangherlini, Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Merideth C.,1
Complainant,
v.
Daniel M. Tangherlini,
Administrator,
General Services Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120161308
Agency No. GSA-13-R2-Q-0076
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated June 18, 2013, 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Acting Director Property Management at the Agency's facility in New York, New York.
On May 31, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of sex (female), age (48), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when:
1. Complainant's second line supervisor (SL Supervisor) told her that none of the Directors would hire her.
2. The SL Supervisor said he only has one liability left now and that liability was Complainant.
3. The SL Supervisor said he knows that Complainant is afraid for her job and she should be.
4. The SL Supervisor discussed her employment status with his subordinates and management official outside of the Agency and told that official he was going to fire Complainant.
The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency noted that Complainant failed to establish that she was subjected to any harm. Further, the Agency held that Complainant raised event (4) in a previous complaint filed under Agency No. GSA-13-R2-Q-0070. We note that the Agency's dismissal of Agency No. GSA-13-R2-Q-0070 was affirmed by the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132823 (March 31, 2015).
This appeal followed. Complainant asserted that the Agency's final decision was not appropriate. She noted that the Agency identified the SL Supervisor as Complainant's former supervisor which she found to be inaccurate. She indicated that she has been impacted personally and professionally. She asserted that these events were prior to her interview for a promotion and discouraged her from pursuing promotions. Finally, Complainant clarified that event (4) was not raised in the instant matter. She indicated that the three events (1) - (3) created a hostile work environment. The Agency asked that the Commission affirm its decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a complaint from an 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. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). If complainant cannot establish that she is aggrieved, the Agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
The Commission has held that where, as here, a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, the claim of harassment may survive if it alleges conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). We find that Complainant's allegations are insufficient to state a claim of a hostile work environment.
Regarding Complainant's claim of reprisal, the Commission has stated that adverse actions need not qualify as "ultimate employment actions" or materially affect the terms and conditions of employment to constitute retaliation. Lindsey v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05980410 (Nov. 4, 1999) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual, No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998)). Instead, the statutory retaliation clauses prohibit any adverse treatment that is based upon a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity. Id. We find that Complainant failed to assert that the alleged events raised would be reasonably likely to deter her or others from engaging in EEO activity. As such, we find that the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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 Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
May 10, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120161308
4
0120161308