01986166
05-24-2000
Roselyn Brodie, Complainant, Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Roselyn Brodie v. Department of the Army
01986166
May 24, 2000
Roselyn Brodie, )
Complainant, )
)
) Appeal No. 01986166
) Agency No. 09701H0010
Louis Caldera, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Army, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from the final decision of the agency
concerning complainant's claims that the agency violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000 et seq.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>
The issues on appeal are whether complainant was discriminated against
on the bases of sex (female), race (African-American), and reprisal
for prior EEO activity with regard to the issues of appointment,
evaluation/appraisal, assignment of duties, hostile work conditions,
sexual harassment, and harassment (non-sexual) when she was subjected
to twenty-seven (27) claimed discriminatory incidents. These incidents
primarily involved claimed discriminatory work assignments, deadlines,
criticisms, and a failure on the part of complainant's supervisor (S-1)
to assist complainant in various ways with her assignments.
The agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race or sex discrimination because she did not show that she was
adversely affected by the claimed actions and because she failed to show
that similarly situated individual(s), outside of her protected groups,
were treated more favorably under essentially the same circumstances.
The agency also found that complainant failed to establish an inference
of reprisal discrimination. In this regard, the agency stated that while
management officials were aware of complainant's prior EEO activity,
complainant failed to show that her employment situation was adversely
changed or affected. In addition, the agency concluded that complainant
failed to show that she was harassed based on her sex. The agency
concluded that complainant failed to show that she was subjected to
unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
Assuming arguendo that complainant established the requisite inferences
of discrimination, the agency determined that it articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory explanations with regard to each claimed action. In its
FAD, the agency specifically responded to each of complainant's claims.
Regarding the agency's claimed failures to grant complainant extensions
of time on certain work assignments, complainant's supervisor stated that
complainant routinely asked for extensions of time and that sometimes
he was able to grant them and sometimes he was not. Regarding the
claimed criticisms of complainant's writing style, the supervisor
stated that there were deficiencies in complainant's writing style
and that he tried to assist complainant with this. Regarding other
criticisms of complainant's work, the supervisor testified that he
only identified problems in complainant's work product when such
problems existed. Regarding work assigned to complainant which was
not specifically in her job description, the supervisor stated that
complainant was occasionally asked to perform tasks not specifically
stated in her job description as other employees were.
The agency also denied that complainant was not assisted with getting
information she needed to perform her work. Complainant's supervisor
stated that he repeatedly told complainant that when she had trouble
getting needed information she should prepare a letter, under his
signature, asking for the information. Finally, the agency denied that
complainant was subjected to any type of harassment or hostile work
environment, sexual or otherwise.
Complainant's complaint constitutes, in part, a claim of disparate
treatment which the agency analyzed under the three-tiered analytical
framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
(1993); Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248
(1981); Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,
Inc., 425 F.Supp. 318, aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1sCir. 1976). See also
McKenna v. Weinburger, 729 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ; Burrus v. United
Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339 (10th Cir. 1982); and,
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 U.S. 367 91993). The agency also
analyzed complainant's sexual harassment claims under Meritor Savings
Bank F.S.B. v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
After careful review, we find that the agency properly concluded that
complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she was discriminated against as claimed. We agree with the agency
that complainant did not raise inferences of sex, race, or reprisal
discrimination.
However, assuming arguendo that complainant established the requisite
inferences of discrimination, we agree with the agency that it articulated
specific explanations with regard to each of complainant's claims. After
carefully reviewing these explanations and complainant's testimony, we
find that complainant failed to prove that they are unworthy of belief
or suspect. We also find no other evidence in the record which indicates
that complainant's race, sex, or prior EEO activity played any part
in her treatment by management officials, particularly her supervisor,
or that she was subjected to any form of sexual harassment.
Regarding complainant's contention on appeal that there was a conspiracy
by management officials against her, we find that there is inadequate
record evidence to support this contention. There is also inadequate
evidence to support complainant's contention on appeal that there
is violence against women at the agency. Accordingly, we find that
complainant was not discriminated based on race, sex, or prior EEO
activity.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 (S1199)
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 (Z1199)
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:
05-24-00
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operation
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________________ ___________________________
Date
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.