Verla G.,1 Complainant,v.Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 16, 20160120143197 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 16, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Verla G.,1 Complainant, v. Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency. Appeal No. 0120143197 Hearing No. 570-2012-01094X Agency Nos. EU-FY11-080, EU-FY12-040 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated July 25, 2014, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaints 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In Agency No. EU-FY11-080, filed on June 30, 2011, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race/color (Black), sex (female), and age (DOB: 1963) when she was subjected to harassment in that: 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 0120143197 2 a. In June, 2011, Acting Principal (S1) of Schweinfurt Elementary School (ES) placed negative remarks in the comments section of her performance appraisal and threatened to place her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); b. In June, 2011, a coworker (C1) approached her in an aggressive manner; c. From August, 2009, through June, 2011, student records and eligibility pertaining to the gifted program were mishandled by the administrative staff at Schweinfurt ES; d. On May 26, 2011, she was yelled at during a meeting; e. On May 16, 2011, a coworker (C2) looked into her classroom; f. On May 30, 2011, a coworker (C3) entered her classroom to show a new student where he needed to go; g. On March 14, 2011, a coworker (C4) approached her in a hostile manner to discuss an issue about a student; h. In February, 2011, two parents sent electronic messages from a school computer regarding ways to earn extra money; i. In January, 2011, Principal (S2) of Schweinfurt ES followed her in S2’s car as she drove out of the school parking lot; j. On December 7, 2010, S2 and Assistant Principals (S3) of Schweinfurt ES and C4 and another coworker (C5) yelled at her during a meeting; k. In October, 2010, a coworker (C6) stated C6 was sick of her and the school math plan; l. In May, 2009, coworkers (C7, C8, and C9) expressed that students in the gifted program needed more of a challenge; m. During school year 2009/2010, S2 allowed parents to yell at her during a gifted review committee meeting; n. In January, 2009, a coworker (C10) contacted a parent concerning their child’s eligibility in the school’s gifted program; o. During school year 2008/2009, a parent yelled at her and S2 did not intervene; p. In October, 2008, Registrar at Schweinfurt ES made erroneous entries in the school registry database pertaining to student eligibility for the gifted program; and 0120143197 3 q. During school year 2007/2008, coworkers (C11 and C12) watched her leave her room every day. In Agency No. EU-FY12-040, filed on March 30, 2012, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (African-American), color (black), age (DOB: 1963), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was subjected to harassment in that: r. On February 9, 2012, C4 ate C4’s lunch in Complainant’s classroom while Complainant was teaching students; s. On February 8, 2012, C4 questioned her in an unprofessional manner and questioned her truthfulness and character; t. On February 7, 2012, the gifted program review meeting was canceled by the Schweinfurt ES/Middle School (MS) administration; u. On December 2, 2011, an unidentified coworker (C13) ignored her when she aided a student during a medical emergency. C13 reprimanded her in front of other students and told them not to trust or communicate with her; v. On August 25, 2011, a coworker (C14) pushed her and tried to instigate an argument with her; w. On November 27, 2011, Principal (S4) of Schweinfurt ES/MS assigned her to teach a research class; x. On August 25, 2011, S4 assigned her to teach a MS class for one period of the day; and y. On August 22, 2011, S4 moved her classroom assignment from room 79 to room 4b. Complainant contended that room 4b was totally inadequate and there were a number of safety hazards in the room. Upon completion of the investigation of the complaints, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On June 30, 2014, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. On appeal, Complainant maintains she was discriminated against by her coworkers and her supervisors as alleged. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment 0120143197 4 is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged incidents. At the relevant time period at issue, Complainant was a Gifted Program Specialist at Schweinfurt ES, Bavaria District (southeast Germany), Department of Defense Dependents Schools-Europe. The record indicates that in 2010/2011, Schweinfurt ES was combined with Schweinfurt MS. After a review of the record, it appears that Complainant did not get along with her coworkers and her supervisors and had work related disputes concerning her gifted programs. Specifically, the supervisors indicated that Complainant usually sat by herself and not with other teachers at teacher meetings and she was not friendly to others. The supervisors also stated that Complainant was a good teacher, was dedicated to her job, cared about her job, was not placed on a PIP, and always received pass ratings in a pass or fail rating system. Furthermore, the supervisors stated that it was typical, as Complainant described, that teachers came to the supervisors complaining and disagreeing with their coworkers’ teaching methods and/or personality conflicts in the school and also concerning their problems with students and parents. Specifically, S4 indicated that after ES and MS were combined into one building, S4 was scheduling classes among teachers to meet the needs of both ES and MS students. S4 stated that since ES had more teachers and since Complainant, as a specialist, was not assigned to any core classes to teach and her schedule was flexible to teach one hour out of the full day, she was assigned to one MS research elective class. S4 also stated that after Complainant complained about her class room size, she was immediately moved to another proper class room. Complainant does not contest this. It appears that Complainant clearly disagreed with her coworkers’ and supervisors’ giving guidance concerning her gifted program teaching method. In fact, she found such guidance interfering, upsetting, and professionally stressful. The AJ determined that the alleged incidents, examined either in isolation or in concert, were not objectively unreasonable, and did not represent the type of conduct that would create an unreasonable interference with Complainant’s work environment. No incidents were shown to be motivated by 0120143197 5 discrimination. With regard to additional class assignments, we find that Complainant failed to show that there were any similarly situated employees not in her protected groups who were treated differently under similar circumstances. Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to harassment or that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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). 0120143197 6 COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations December 16, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation