[Redacted], Carmen V., 1 Complainant,v.Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004045 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Carmen V.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency. Appeal No. 2020004045 Hearing No. 480-2020-00072X Agency No. BOP-2019-0336 DECISION On July 4, 2020, 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 July 2, 2020 final decision concerning his 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Correctional Systems Officer, GS-8, at the Agency’s Federal Correctional Complex in Lompoc, California. On April 8, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African American) and sex (male) when on November 6, 2018, Complainant was sexually harassed by a coworker and, on November 8, 2018, management failed to take appropriate corrective action. 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. 2020004045 2 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew his request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision (FAD) concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Specifically, the Agency found that even assuming the action occurred, it was a single action that was insufficiently severe to constitute harassment and that, while management may have delayed its response, it acted appropriately once Complainant reminded management of his allegation. The instant appeal from Complainant followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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”). During the investigation, Complainant alleged that around “October-ish of 2018”, a coworker (CW: Caucasian, female) made a “cat call,” also described as meowing like a cat, towards him. Complainant averred that on November 6, 2018, CW did it again, and that she had also done the same thing to him “a few years earlier. . . probably 2014-2015.” Complainant stated that shortly after the November incident he sent a memorandum about the incident to the Associate Warden. However, an investigation was not initiated into the matter until March 2019. The Warden explained that the delay occurred because the Associate Warden was in the process of transferring to another facility at the time the memorandum was received and apparently it was lost in the transfer process. The Warden did not learn about the incident until Complainant reminded management about it in February/March 2019, and the internal investigation was held, and CW was counseled to cease this behavior. Complainant confirmed that after the November 6 incident CW made no further harassing actions towards him. In considering whether any of the above actions, whether individually or collectively, constituted sexual or racial harassment, the Commission notes that in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive that it results in an alteration of the conditions of the complainant’s employment. See EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994), Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3. 2020004045 3 Furthermore, in assessing whether the complainant has set forth an actionable claim of harassment, the conduct at issue must be viewed in the context of the totality of the circumstances, considering, inter alia, the nature and frequency of offensive encounters and the span of time over which the encounters occurred. See 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(b); EEOC Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment, N 915 050, No. 137 (March 19, 1990); Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997). However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998): “simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment.” The Court noted that such conduct “must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, [such] that a reasonable person would find [the work environment to be] hostile or abusive, and . . . that the victim in fact did perceive to be so.” Id. See also Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 752 (1998); Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001). Complainant has also raised a claim of unlawful retaliation for engaging in prior protected activity. The anti-retaliation provisions of the employment discrimination statutes seek to prevent an employer from interfering with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the statutes’ basic guarantees and are not limited to actions affecting employment terms and conditions. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). To state a viable claim of retaliation, Complainant must allege that: 1) he was subjected to an action which a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse, and 2) the action could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Id. See also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, No. 915.004 (August 25, 2016); Carroll v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970939 (April 4, 2000). Even assuming the October and November 2018 incidents occurred as alleged by Complainant, he has not established that these isolated events were sufficiently severe and/or pervasive so as to alter the term and conditions of his employment. In reaching this conclusion, we note that Complainant asserts that he has been punished in the past by management when engaging in similar misconduct, while others have not. However, other than the incident with CW, Complainant has not identified a timely incident where he was punished while others outside of his protected bases were not for the same behavior. We are therefore unable to address such an allegation in this decision. Complainant has also not proven that management’s response to his complaint about CW’s behavior would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in the EEO complaint process. We are persuaded that the Agency’s delayed response, while not acceptable, was inadvertent due to the corresponding departure of the Associate Warden. We remind the Agency, however, that management is required to respond promptly to all allegations of harassment. 2020004045 4 CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we find that Complainant has not shown that discrimination occurred, and we AFFIRM the FAD. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. 2020004045 5 Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 December 8, 2021 Date