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.