[Redacted], Pamila R., 1 Complainant,v.Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000958 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Pamila R.,1 Complainant, v. Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000958 Agency No. 63-2021-00256 DECISION On December 8, 2021, 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 November 8, 2021, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Field Representative, GS-0303-04, at the Agency’s Philadelphia Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to January 2018, Complainant was supervised by Field Supervisor-1; however, due to Complainant’s interpersonal difficulties with Field Supervisor-1, the Agency granted Complainant’s request for reassignment to a new temporary supervisor. Approximately 13 months later, Complainant was reassigned to Field Supervisor-2. See Report of Investigation (ROI) at 108, 126 and 129. On January 25, 2021, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (i.e., requesting 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. 2022000958 2 reasonable accommodation) under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when in December 2020, Field Supervisor-1, again, improperly assigned cases that resulted in fewer cases for Complainant. During the EEO investigation, Complainant explained that as a Field Representative, she was responsible for cases in her “area of responsibility,” which consisted of an area spanning a fifty- mile radius from her home. Complainant stated that each month, Field Supervisor-1 would transfer cases to Field Supervisor-2, who, in turn, would assign them to Complainant. Complainant asserted that each month since April 2019, following her allegation of “discriminatory and harassing behavior in her prior EEO complaint,” Field Supervisor-1 has been using a cumbersome process of transferring cases. Complainant maintained that in December 2020, Field Supervisor-1 failed to even release cases that were in Complainant’s area of responsibility, thereby “costing her extra work every month to ensure she met production.” ROI at 6-7 and 107-10. Field Supervisor-1 vehemently denied assigning Complainant cases, as she was no longer Complainant’s supervisor. Field Supevisor-1 maintained that the task of assigning Complainant cases was handled by Field Supervisor-2, who was Complainant’s current supervisor. ROI at 10 and 127-28. Field Supervisor-2 explained that on November 30, 2020, she received case assignments from Field Supervisor-1 for the month of December 2020. As Field Supervisor-1 was on leave that month, Field Supervisor-2 and another supervisor decided to divide up the cases, which resulted in Complainant being assigned cases outside her area of responsibility. Field Supervisor-2 recalled that Complainant became upset upon being assigned cases outside her area of responsibility because she thought that Field Supervisor-1 had assigned her those cases. However, Field Supevisor-1 was not involved in the decision. ROI at 9. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the ROI and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), which concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. In finding in favor of the Agency, the Agency found that Complainant could not establish a prima facie case of harassment because she failed to show that the alleged actions were causally related to her protected bases. However, even if she could make such a showing, the Agency found that management had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions, which Complainant could not persuasively rebut. Based on the foregoing, the Agency concluded that Complainant could not prevail on her complaint. Neither Complainant nor the Agency submitted contentions on appeal. Upon careful review of the Agency’s decision and the evidence of record, we find that the Agency correctly analyzed the facts and law of this case to determine that Complainant did not 2022000958 3 establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment as alleged. We note that Complainant has not presented any arguments on appeal that would undermine the Agency’s final decision. As anti-discrimination statutes are not general civility codes designed to protect against ordinary tribulations in the workplace, we must AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); see also Lassiter v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122332 (Oct. 10, 2012) (personality conflicts, general workplace disputes, trivial slights and petty annoyances between an alleged harasser and a complainant do not rise to the level of harassment). 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 2022000958 4 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. 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 April 26, 2022 Date