0120140263
06-15-2016
Willa B.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas E. Perez, Secretary, Department of Labor, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Willa B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary,
Department of Labor,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140263
Agency No. CRCDOL-12-06-105
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's September 26, 2013, 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the reasons stated below we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision (FAD) which found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented in this case is whether Complainant was subjected to discrimination and harassment with respect to various workplace incidents.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Claims Examiner, GS-12 at the Agency's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Division of Federal Employees' Compensation in Dallas, Texas. On July 20, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), religion (Baptist), disability (knee injury), age (45), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:2
1. On December 28, 2011, her Manager denied her request for leave;
2. On January 20, 2012, her Manager gave her a "very poor" performance evaluation;
3. On May 2, 2012, her Manager "snatched" a folder out of her hands;
4. On May 30, 2012, her Manager denied her request for credit time;
5. On May 30, 2012, she received an email from her Manager, informing her that she was approving work coverage assistance for only two days despite the fact that she was approved for three days of leave:
6. On July 3 and 10, 2012, her Manager called her at home and harassed her;
7. Her Manager did not respond to her July 12, 2012 request for assistance with her open telephone calls;
8. On July 18, 2012, her Manager refused to approve her request for medical leave; and
9. On August 31, 2012, her Manager denied her request for two (2) hours of leave.
Following an investigation by the Agency, Complainant requested a FAD. In the FAD, the Agency found that assuming that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, it articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely that with respect to claim no. 1, Complainant's request for leave was originally denied because she did not have leave available. With regard to claim no. 2, Complainant's supervisor (S1) indicated that throughout the year, she had given Complainant's feedback about her work and her poor performance and this comment was made during the mid-year review. Regarding claim no. 3, S1 maintained that she did not snatch the file from Complainant's hand but did tell her that she did not have time to play games with Complainant. S1 explained that she denied Complainant's request for credit time because Complainant had not completed her standard 80 hours of work before she asked for additional time.
With respect to claims 5 and 7, S1 indicated that Complainant's request for work coverage assistance was approved while she was out of the office. S1 maintained that Complainant's request for telephone help was also granted. Regarding claim no. 6, S1 indicated that she did not realize that she was calling Complainant's home number as that was the number that was left on the email and S1 was calling to tell Complainant that she needed to report to work. And finally, with regard to claims 8 and 9, Complainant's leave was not approved because she did not have available leave. The agency found that Complainant did not demonstrate that its articulated nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.
Further, with respect to Complainant's claim of harassment, the District Director (DD) stated that Complainant told her that S1 was denying her requests for leave and had downgraded her performance appraisal because of her prior EEO activity. DD indicated that she immediately reported Complainant's allegation to the Agency's harassment department and a thorough investigation was conducted and Complainant's allegations were not substantiated.
Accordingly, the Agency found that the evidence did not support Complainant's contention that she was subjected to discrimination and/or harassment.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant did not submit a brief on appeal. The Agency's brief, among other things, requests that the FAD be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the Agency's final decision. We find that even assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely with respect to the claims regarding leave, claims 1, 4, 8, and 9, the evidence shows that Complainant's leave balance was consistently low and therefore the denial of her requests occurred when she did not have leave, did not have enough leave, or had not worked her regular hours before requesting credit time.
With regard to claim no. 2, the evidence showed that Complainant received a mid-year review that accessed her work as very poor for that period. Regarding claim no. 3, S1 maintained that she did not snatch a file out of Complainant's hand. With respect to claim 6, Complainant was called at home because that was the number listed on the email and S1 was unaware that it was her home number. And finally with respect to claims 5 and 7, the record showed that Complainant was provided work coverage for the days that she was out of the office. We find that Complainant provided no evidence which remotely indicated that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus played any role.
Further, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must also fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
Accordingly, we find because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination or harassment occurred. The Agency's FAD 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).
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 Mdden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__6/15/16________________
Date
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.
2 During the investigation Complainant maintained that her religion, sex, and age were not factors in any of her allegations. Complainant also maintained that her race was not a factor for claims nos., 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140263
2
0120140263