0120160954
01-31-2018
Minna Z.,1 Complainant, v. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Minna Z.,1
Complainant,
v.
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120160954
Hearing No. 430-2013-00385X
Agency No. RD201200797
DECISION
On January 15, 2016, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(a), from the Agency's September 29, 2015, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final decision which found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and or harassment.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this case is whether the Agency erred in finding that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and or harassment.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Multi-Family Housing Specialist, GS-09 at the Agency's State Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination when she was not treated as favorably as employees not of her protected bases. She also alleged that she was subjected to harassment when she was treated differently than other employees. On October 26, 2012, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), color (Black), and reprisal when:
1. On February 25, 2013, she was reassigned to the Single-Family Housing Program staff at the State Office;
2. On September 27, 2012, she was not allowed to attend a housing conference;
3. On July 19, 2012, she was prohibited from contacting sources outside of the office to approve loan applications;
4. On unspecified dates, she was not allowed to perform her official position duties, denied the ability to interact with owner/borrowers and management officials, or to train with a senior specialist;
5. On unspecified dates, her work was reassigned to other employees, and she was tasked with performing clerical duties;
6. On an unspecified date, she was denied advanced sick leave;
7. On unspecified dates, she was the sole specialist required to submit weekly updates concerning her work completion;
8. On an unspecified date, she was told that she could not be pre-selected for an Environmental Specialist position;
9. On several dates, she was subjected to various acts of harassment, including but not limited to:
a. From September 5, 2012, to October 23, 2012, she was not updated concerning the Multi-Family Housing Program;
b. On September 6, 2012, her supervisor suggested that she alter her work schedule such that she could not attend weekly staff meetings;
c. On November 21, 2012, her supervisor accused her of being racist;
d. On November 29, 2012, she was trained to perform GS-05 level duties in an effort to constructively demote her;
e. In November 2012, she was not told who to report to while her supervisor was absent from the office;
f. On an unspecified date, she was instructed to return her laptop computer while on sick leave;
g. On an unspecified date, her supervisor stated that she was never wanted as a staff member;
h. On an unspecified date, her second-line supervisor threatened to move her from the State office;
i. On unspecified dates, her supervisor micromanaged her work performance;
j. On unspecified dates, she was ostracized by her coworkers; and
k. On February 28, 2013, after she experienced an anxiety attack, her supervisor intimated that she was crazy and might try to "do something" to herself if permitted to go home unaccompanied.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge. Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment as alleged. Specifically, the Agency maintained that with respect to claim no. 1, Complainant's reassignment was rescinded because it was decided by management that relocation would not fix the problem. For claim no. 2, the Agency indicated that Complainant was not allowed to go to training because there were no training funds available. Complainant alleged however that the training would have been free based on her location but there is no evidence that Complainant alerted the Agency to this fact. Further, the Agency indicated that the training requested would not benefit the Agency. With regard to claim no. 3, the Agency explained that Complainant was prohibited from contacting sources outside of the office to approve loan applications, because she did not have the authority to bind the agency and moreover, she had offended an outside source contact so she was told to not contact outside sources.
Additionally, the Agency maintained that contrary to Complainant's allegation in claim no. 4, she was given work that was within her position description. The Agency explained that Complainant only worked ten hours a week so she was assigned duties that were not time sensitive. Likewise, regarding claim no. 5, where Complainant indicated that her work was reassigned to other employees, the Agency explained that due to Complainant's limited availability, she was assigned non-time sensitive work, which included the review of legal documents.
Management indicated that contrary to Complainant's allegation in claim no. 6 that her request for advanced sick leave was denied, the record shows that her request for 130 hours of advanced sick leave was in fact approved. Regarding claim no. 7, management explained that Complainant was required to submit weekly updates concerning her work completion because she worked a part-time schedule and her supervisor wanted to know what she was working on. In responding to claim no. 8, management maintained that an Environmental Specialist position became available in the office and Complainant indicated that she wanted the position. Management explained that she would have to go through the application process in order to be considered for the position. Complainant indicated that other employees not of her protected bases had been pre-selected for the position. Management indicated however that everyone who received a promotion or job change had won it competitively.
Finally, with respect to claim no. 9, Complainant listed a series of incidents that she indicated created a hostile work environment. Management indicated that the incidents were work related matters that involved work assignments, meetings, information, and peer and supervisory interactions and were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
The Agency found that Complainant did not show that the Agency's reasons for its actions were pretext for discrimination. The Agency also determined that Complainant did not show that she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, Complainant did not submit a brief. The Agency asserts that it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and Complainant did not show that the articulated reasons were pretext for discrimination. The Agency also found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Standard of Review
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we find that even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases, we find the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions as was discussed above. We also find that Complainant did not demonstrate that the Agency's nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Further, we find that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to unlawful harassment. Upon review, we find that the incidents complained of were typical work related interactions that were not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision which found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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
__1/31/18________________
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
0120160954
6
0120160954