Vawn M. Muse, Complainant,v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 14, 2009
0120081491 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 2009)

0120081491

09-14-2009

Vawn M. Muse, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.


Vawn M. Muse,

Complainant,

v.

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury

(Internal Revenue Service),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120081491

Agency No. EEODFS070447F

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's January 11, 2008, final decision 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.

Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the bases

of sex (female) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was

harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment between May 2006 and

July 2007, with regard to seven incidents.1 Following an investigation,

complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).

In November 2007, she withdrew her request for a hearing and asked for

a final agency decision (FAD). The agency issued a FAD, finding that

the agency did not discriminate against complainant.

Complainant began working for the agency's Internal Revenue Service

as a Revenue Officer, Small Business Division, at the King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania Center in August 2005. She contended that her manager (S1)

criticized her work and treated her differently on account of her sex and

prior EEO activity, including the instant complainant.2 Specifically,

complainant contended that S1 minimized her work; told her that she was

not sufficiently submissive to him; that he did not adjust her heavy

workload following her four-week medical absence; that, until January

2007, neither she nor any female employee was given signatory authority

when serving as Acting Manager; that, on January 29, 2007, she received a

negative case review from S1 based on notes from her Group Manager (S2);

that S1 gave her specific directions on her cases during monthly reviews;

that S1 gave her unproductive tasks (not identified); that S1 made a

"fraud referral" to make her look bad; and that S1 gave her a negative

mid-year review.

S1 had served with the agency since 1988, and became a supervisor in

March 2003. In response to complainant's allegations, he denied using

the term "submissive" about anyone but did tell complainant that she

was aggressive and abrasive to him, taxpayers, and co-workers; he did

adjust her caseload by not assigning her new cases for 30 days following

her absence; that signatory authority was given to a male and female at

the same time and to a second female a little later; that his January

and July 2007 performance reviews were based on her work activity and

presented an accurate description of her deficiencies, including notes on

her cases from S2; and, as to her belief that the fraud referral would

impact her negatively, he stated that it was not true, especially since

he signed the document. Finally, S1 noted that complainant had never

spoken to him regarding discrimination or harassment.3

The standard of review in rendering this appellate decision is de novo,

i.e., the Commission will examine the record and review the documents,

statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant

submissions of the parties, and issue its decision based on the

Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of

the law. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a); EEOC Management Directive 110,

Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999).

Harassment. It is well-settled that harassment based on an

individual's protected status is unlawful, if it is sufficiently

patterned or pervasive; usually, however, a single incident or a group

of isolated incidents will not be regarded as discriminatory harassment.

Frye v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05950152 (February 8,

1996); Backo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960227

(June 10, 1996); see also Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 477

U.S. 57 (1986). In this matter, while complainant is a member of a

protected class based on her sex and prior EEO activity, she has not

shown that the agency's actions were based on gender animus or taken in

reprisal. Further, we find that none of the incidents, taken together

or individually, were sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the

level of illegal harassment. See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury,

EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997), citing Harris v. Forklift

Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (harassment is actionable if

it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the

complainant's employment). Moreover, complainant has not shown that the

alleged harassment took place, affected a term or condition of employment,

and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the

work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive

work environment.4 See Humphrey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11.

We find that, even if complainant's harassment claim is examined as

claims of disparate treatment, she has not demonstrated that the agency's

reasons for its actions were not its true reasons and that its actions

were influenced by legally impermissible criteria, i.e., animus toward her

based on her sex and EEO activity. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (1973); Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,

438 U.S. 567 (1978); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502

(1993); U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,

715-716 (1983).

In her appeal statement, complainant stated that she disagreed with S1's

opinion of her work performance, that she believed that S1 intended

to cause her stress by harassing her on account of her sex, that she

performed well and was rated highly, and that she should be treated with

the same care and consideration as given to males. These contentions

reiterate her original allegations in this complaint but do not provide

probative evidence in support of her claims. See Enforcement Guidance:

Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice

No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999).

CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety and consideration of

all statements submitted on appeal, including those not specifically

addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to affirm the agency's final decision, because the

preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that

discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court

that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court

also 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 with the Court 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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

September 14, 2009

Date

1 In July 2007, complainant amended her complainant with regard to an

unfavorable mid-year review she received.

2 S1 stated that he became aware of complainant's EEO activity with

regard to the instant complaint in March 2007.

3 In her appeal statement, complainant stated that she disagreed with

S1's opinion of her work performance, that she believed that S1 intended

to cause her stress by harassing her on account of her sex, that she

performed well and was rated highly, and that she should be treated with

the same care and consideration as given to males. These contentions

reiterate her original allegations in this complaint but do not provide

probative evidence in support of her claims.

4 See Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment

by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (June 18, 1999).

??

??

??

??

2

0120081491

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

5

0120081491