01976085
09-07-1999
Susan K. Howard, Appellant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration) Agency.
Susan K. Howard v. Department of Transportation
01976085
September 7, 1999
Susan K. Howard, )
Appellant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01976085
Rodney E. Slater, ) Agency No. 4-97-001
Secretary, )
Department of Transportation, )
(Federal Aviation Administration) )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision ("FAD") concerning her complaint of employment discrimination
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged that she was
discriminated against on the basis of sex (female) when she was harassed
and subjected to a hostile environment by a co-worker ("CW"). This appeal
is accepted in accordance with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed
as an Air Traffic Control Specialist, at the agency's Jackson Air Traffic
Control Tower in Jackson, Michigan. Appellant alleges that her problems
with CW began in August 1995, when CW returned from vacation and learned
that appellant had organized a luncheon using union funds for airport
personnel to better their working relationships.<1> Appellant states
that CW berated her for spending the funds in such a manner. She alleges
that since this incident, CW has continually harassed her primarily by
ignoring her for long periods and then suddenly verbally attacking her
in front of her peers.
Appellant states that the events that precipitated this complaint
occurred on August 28, 1996, when CW badgered her about who told her that
he had indicated that she should take an open position in the tower.
On August 29, 1996, appellant went to inform her supervisor ("AS") of
the CW's harassing behavior. She alleges that prior to the August 28,
1996 event, she had reported CW's behavior to AS on at least a half
dozen occasions, but AS never took any action other than to pass out
a sexual harassment article. AS states that appellant did not inform
him of the problems she was having with CW until on August 29, 1996.
He states thereafter he investigated the situation and determined that
the problem was a personal conflict between appellant and CW, unrelated
to appellant's gender.
Believing she was a victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on October 3, 1996.
The agency accepted the complaint for processing, and at the conclusion
of the investigation, appellant requested that the agency issue a final
agency decision.
The FAD concluded that appellant failed to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that she was subjected to severe or pervasive harassing
conduct because of her gender. The FAD found that: (1) appellant had not
provided any corroborating evidence showing that she was harassed by CW;
(2) even assuming that the alleged incidents had occurred, CW's conduct
was neither severe nor pervasive and for the most part involved inaction,
such as refusing to speak to appellant; and (3) during the alleged period
of harassment, appellant and CW socialized together with their families
outside of the workplace. Finally, the FAD concluded that considering
the totality of the circumstances, appellant failed to establish that
she was subjected to a hostile work environment.
On appeal, appellant contends that the agency failed to take into
consideration all of the evidence in the case and requests that the
Commission reexamine the record. The agency requests that we affirm
its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Commission finds that appellant failed
to establish that the alleged harassment was based on discriminatory
animus toward her sex. In reviewing the evidence, it appears that
appellant and CW were once friends and after certain incidents, found it
difficult to effectively work together. The incidents underlying this
complaint began when appellant and CW had a confrontation surrounding the
use of union funds. We find that the evidence does not demonstrate that
any of the incidents in question were severe or pervasive or resulted
because of appellant's gender; but instead, resulted because of the
deteriorating relationship between the two. Therefore, after a careful
review of the record, including appellant's contentions on appeal, the
agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed
in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
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 the
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 the 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 the 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 the decision or to consult an attorney
concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your
action would be filed. 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 (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:
September 7, 1999
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 At the time, CW was the president of the local union while appellant
was the vice-president.