01991978
10-22-1999
Phillip J. Lavullis, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Phillip J. Lavullis v. Department of the Navy
01991978
October 22, 1999
Phillip J. Lavullis, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01991978
) Agency No. 99-65888-004
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Based on a review of the record, we find that the agency properly
dismissed one allegation in appellant's complaint, pursuant to EEOC
Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim.
Appellant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination in reprisal
for prior EEO activity when:
From January 1998, through June 1998, appellant was denied the opportunity
to work equitable overtime;
In June 1998, appellant became aware that he was not selected for the
WL-3806-10, Sheet Metal Mechanic Leader position vacancy;
In July 1998, appellant's supervisor removed appellant from the E506
aircraft which caused appellant to lose overtime hours;
On August 17, 1998, another supervisor (S2) monitored appellant's work
and time.
Appellant further alleged that the foregoing incidents constituted
harassment which created a hostile work environment.
On December 16, 1998, the agency issued a final decision accepting
allegations (a) through (c) and dismissing allegation (d) pursuant to
29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the
agency determined that because appellant suffered no tangible harm as a
result of S2's actions, he was not aggrieved under the EEOC regulations.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) 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. 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 21, 1994).
In the present case, we concur with the agency's determination that,
standing alone, allegation (d) fails to state a claim. Appellant failed
to show that he suffered harm to the terms, conditions or privileges of
his employment as a result of S2's actions.
However, 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).
However, it is well-settled that, unless the conduct is very severe,
a single incident or a group of isolated incidents will not be regarded
as creating a discriminatory work environment. See James v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05940327 (September 20,
1994); Walker v. Ford Motor Company, 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the instant complaint, we find that appellant failed to show that
he suffered harm with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of
his employment as a result of S2's actions. Therefore, standing alone,
allegation (d) fails to state a claim. Additionally, even when viewed
within the context of allegations (a) through (c) and in a light most
favorable to appellant, allegation (d) is too isolated and insufficiently
severe to establish a hostile work environment. Consequently, allegation
(d) was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for
failure to state a claim.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons
set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
October 22, 1999
____________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations