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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 22, 2022

Appeal No. 2021001374 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 22, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sharolyn S.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency. Appeal No. 2021001374 Hearing No. 550-2018-00562X Agency No. BOP-2018-0385 DECISION 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 20, 2020, final order 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Corrections Officer at the Agency’s Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California. On April 27, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment on the basis of race (African American) from August 17, 2017, to May 4, 2018, when: 1. a coworker (CW) shared information obtained from media with other staff members in an effort to defame Complainant’s character,2 and after reporting the initial incident, CW called and laughed at the Complainant; and 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. 2021001374 2 2. despite reporting the harassment on two separate occasions, management failed to address Complainant’s concerns. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. Complainant did not respond to the Agency’s motion. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The AJ found that the Agency’s statement of undisputed facts was supported by the record, and he adopted and incorporated the Agency’s recitation of material facts, summary of relevant testimony, and statements of law. The AJ then found that no prima facie analysis was necessary because the Agency provided unrebutted evidence that, in each instance of Complainant’s complaints, CW was spoken to and asked to refrain from her alleged actions. In addition, the AJ determined that CW’s actions, while inappropriate and certainly distressing to Complainant, were neither sufficiently severe nor pervasive to rise to the level of establishing a hostile work environment. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination or harassment based on race. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and she must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. 2 CW shared a news article reporting Complainant’s prior arrest for submitting false documents for a workers’ compensation claim. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 168. 2021001374 3 On appeal, Complainant argues that there is a need to cross-examine witnesses. Complainant asserts that she will be able to show that non-African American employees were granted threat assessments sooner than 10 months and prove disparate treatment based on race.3 However, Complainant did not provide any examples of conflicting evidence to establish a dispute of material fact, and she did not show a need to cross-examine witnesses. Mere allegations, speculations, and conclusory statements, without more, are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Lee v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No 0520110581 (Jan. 12, 2012), citing to Baker v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01981962 (June 26, 2001), request for recon. den’d, EEOC Request No. 05A10914 (Oct. 1, 2001). In addition, a review of the record does not reveal any genuine disputes of material facts. As such, we find that the AJ correctly determined that the complaint was appropriate for a decision without a hearing. Complainant also argues that those outside of her protected class were granted threat assessments sooner than 10 months. However, Complainant did not identify any similarly situated comparator who was treated more favorably. Accordingly, we find that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination when the Agency allegedly failed to address her complaints of harassment. Complainant disagrees with the AJ’s determination that she was not subjected to severe or pervasive conduct based on three incidents when CW “trashed” her office with food trays; held up an article with Complainant’s picture describing alleged illegal activity for employees to see as they entered the workplace; and called Complainant to laugh at her and encouraged Complainant’s partner to look into Complainant’s alleged illegal activity. Even crediting Complainant’s version of events, there is no evidence to connect CW’s actions to Complainant’s race. As such, we find that the AJ correctly determined that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to harassment based on her race. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as Complainant’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. 3 The Agency conducted a threat assessment on May 18, 2018. The Agency concluded that the matter did not rise to the level of workplace violence but recommended a cease and desist letter be issued to CW instructing her to refrain from engaging in unprofessional conduct or interactions with Complainant. ROI at 179-83. 2021001374 4 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. 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). 2021001374 5 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 March 22, 2022 Date