0120083827
02-20-2009
Paula S. Rathers, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Paula S. Rathers,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120083827
Agency No. BEP-07-0839F
Hearing No. 450-2008-00151X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the July 30, 2008
agency decision which implemented the July 22, 2008 decision of an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ) who found no discrimination.
Complaint alleges 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. Specifically, complainant alleged that the agency discriminated
against her by subjecting her to a hostile work environment on the bases
of race (Black), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity when:
1. In April 2007, the Supervisory Information Specialist grabbed her by
the hair.
2. On May 11, 2007, she was denied medical treatment in the health unit.
3. On June 28, 2007, she was issued a security violation.
4. On July 5, 2007, the Supervisory Information Specialist pulled her
hair and dragged her down the hall.
After an investigation of her complaint, complainant requested a hearing.
During the pendency of the hearing request, the AJ granted the agency's
motion to dismiss claims 1, 2, and 3, noting complainant failed to
contact an EEO Counselor in a timely fashion and that claim 3 failed to
state a claim. The AJ noted also that she would consider claim 1 as
part of complainant's hostile work environment claim. The AJ granted
the agency's unopposed agency motion for a decision without a hearing
(summary judgment).
In finding no discrimination, the AJ found that complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on her race or
sex, noting that she failed to establish that she was treated differently
than similarly situated individuals outside her protected classes.
The AJ also found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of a hostile work environment based on her race or sex, noting that
complainant had not alleged any conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive
so as to alter the conditions of her work environment or conduct which
unreasonably interfered with her work performance. Regarding the prima
facie case of a hostile work environment, the AJ found that complainant
failed to establish that there was a basis to impute liability to the
agency, noting that the agency promptly investigated the incident and
issued discipline to the alleged harasser. The AJ found that although
complainant had established that she was subjected to unwelcome conduct,
she failed to establish that the alleged harassment created a hostile
work environment. Regarding complainant's claim of reprisal, the AJ
found further that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case,
noting that although complainant had engaged in prior protected EEO
activity, she failed to establish that she was subjected to an adverse
employment action or that the responsible official had knowledge of her
prior protected activity.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing when the AJ finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the
summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment
is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive
legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists
no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of
the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.
Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case.
If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing
a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context
of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the
record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
To establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination, a
complainant must show the following: (1) complainant was a member of the
protected class; (2) an adverse action was taken against complainant;
(3) a causal relationship existed between complainant's membership in
the protected class and the adverse action; and (4) other employees
outside of complainant's protected class were treated differently.
A complainant may establish a prima facie case of reprisal by showing
that: (1) complainant engaged in a protected activity; (2) the agency
was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently, complainant
was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus
exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment.
Whitmire v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340
(September 25, 2000).
To establish a prima facie case of harassment, complainant must show
that: (1) complainant belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2)
complainant was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal
or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; (4) the
harassment affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment
and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment;
and (5) some basis exists to impute liability to the employer, i.e.,
supervisory employees knew or should have known of the conduct but
failed to take corrective action. See Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57,
64-65 (1986); 29 C.F.R. 1604.11(a)(d).
The Commission finds that the grant of summary judgment was appropriate.
Specifically, the Commission finds that the investigative record was
adequately developed; there were no genuine issues of material fact;
and there were no findings of fact made by weighing conflicting evidence
or assessing witness credibility.
Initially, the Commission notes that complainant does not contest the
AJ's dismissal of claims 1, 2, and 3. Accordingly, we will not address
the propriety of the dismissal.
Regarding complainant's complaint that she was subjected to prohibited
discrimination, the Commission finds that complainant has failed to
establish a prima facie case on any basis. Complainant has not shown,
and the evidence considered as a whole does not support, that she was
subjected to a hostile work environment based on her membership in
her protected classes, or that some basis exists to impute liability
to the employer. Even accepting complainant's complaint that she
was dragged by the hair down the hall and that the alleged harasser
had done so previously, the record does not support a finding that the
actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Further, the record also
establishes that the agency conducted a prompt and immediate investigation
regarding complainant's claim and that the responsible official,
who was a supervisor (not complainant's supervisor), was reprimanded
for inappropriate conduct in pulling complainant's hair. Moreover,
construing the evidence in a light most favorable to complainant,
complainant has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination.
The agency's finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
February 20, 2009
__________________
Date
5
0120083827
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013