Terron M. Brown, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 14, 2000
01a03188 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 14, 2000)

01a03188

07-14-2000

Terron M. Brown, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Terron M. Brown v. United States Postal Service

01A03188

July 14, 2000

Terron M. Brown, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A03188

) Agency No. 1G-708-0017-98

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________________)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) from the final agency decision concerning his equal

employment opportunity (EEO) complaint, which alleged discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted by the Commission in

accordance with the provisions of 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether complainant has established that the

agency discriminated against him in violation of the above-referenced

statutes when he was harassed on December 18, 1998, in that his supervisor

stood over him, escorted him to work a route, and told him that he (the

supervisor) would continue to watch him (complainant) and take notice.

BACKGROUND

In a complaint filed June 10, 1998, complainant, a Custodian, PS-3,

alleged that the agency discriminated against him as delineated in the

above-entitled statement, �Issue Presented.� The agency conducted an

investigation, provided complainant with a copy of the investigative

report, and advised complainant of his right to request either a

hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or an immediate final

agency decision (FAD). Complainant did not respond to this advisory.

On February 23, 2000, the agency issued a FAD finding no discrimination.

It is from this decision that complainant now appeals.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

It is well-established that an employer who creates or tolerates a

work environment which is permeated with �discriminatory intimidation,

ridicule, and insult� that is �sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter

the conditions of the victim's employment� is in violation of Title VII.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (citing Meritor

Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)). The conduct in question is

evaluated from the standpoint of a reasonable person, taking into account

the particular context in which it occurred. Highlander v. KFC Management

Co., 805 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1986). Unless the conduct is very severe,

a single incident or a group of isolated incidents will not be regarded

as discriminatory treatment. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355

(11th Cir. 1982).

Assuming for the sake of argument that complainant has established that

he is entitled to protection under the relevant statutes, the Commission

nonetheless finds that he has not established that he was subjected

to discriminatory harassment. The record reflects that the management

conduct of which he complained � essentially, being closely observed by

his supervisor on one particular date � was in fact a routine evaluation

of his performance. Even if the evaluation of complainant's performance

were not routine, he has not shown that management's conduct toward him

was so severe as to alter the conditions of his employment. Accordingly,

complainant has not established his claim of discriminatory harassment.

CONCLUSION

Based upon a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons,

it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to

AFFIRM the final agency decision.

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

July 14, 2000

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

Date

1On 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.