01a00785
02-08-2000
William D. Martin, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (S.E./S.W. Areas) Agency.
William D. Martin, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A00785
) Agency No. 1H-302-0017-99
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(S.E./S.W. Areas) )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On October 20, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) pertaining to his complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant alleged that
he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race (Caucasian), age
(49) and physical disability(left foot impairment), when since 1995,
several of his coworkers have referred to him in derogatory terms,
i.e., �gimpy�, �cripple� and �club foot.� <2> The appeal is accepted
in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
Complainant alleged in his complaint that since he returned to work from a
job related injury in 1995, coworkers have called him derogatory names in
reference to his disability. He further claims that this treatment caused
him stress and embarrassment The EEO Counselor's report also indicates
that an interview could not be held with complainant within the thirty
day time limit, and complainant refused to extend the time limits.
Also contained in the record is an agency request for information
regarding specific dates on which complainant allegedly discriminated
against. There is no evidence of a response to the agency's request
for information.
On September 22, 1999, the agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a) for failure to state a claim.
Specifically, the agency determined that complainant failed to demonstrate
that he suffered direct and personal deprivation as a result of any
agency action. As such, complainant failed to allege that he suffered
harm to a term, condition or privilege of his employment, he was not
aggrieved under the EEOC regulations.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides, in relevant part, that
an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved
employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been
discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �1614.103;
�1614.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long
defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss
with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which
there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
The Commission has repeatedly found that remarks or comments unaccompanied
by a concrete agency action are not a direct and personal deprivation
sufficient to render an individual aggrieved for the purposes of
Title VII. See Backo v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960227
(June 10, 1996); Henry v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940695
(February 9, 1995).
In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477
U.S. 57, 67 (1986), that harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's
employment. The Court explained that an "objectively hostile or abusive
work environment" is created when "a reasonable person would find [it]
hostile or abusive: and the complainant subjectively perceives it as
such. Harris, supra at 21-22. Thus, not all claims of harassment are
actionable. Where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or
inaction regarding a specific term, condition or privilege of employment,
a claim of harassment is actionable only if, allegedly, the harassment
to which the complainant has been subjected was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment.
A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it
appears beyond doubt that the complainant cannot prove a set of facts in
support of the claim which would entitle the complainant to relief. The
trier of fact must consider all of the alleged harassing incidents and
remarks, and considering them together in the light most favorable to
the complainant, determine whether they are sufficient to state a claim.
Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13,
1997).
However it is well-settled that, unless the conduct is very severe,
a single incident or a group of isolated incidents will not be regarded
as creating a discriminatory work environment. See James v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05940327 (September 20,
1994); Walker v. Ford Motor Company, 684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982). In
the instant complaint, we find that complainant failed to show that
he suffered harm with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges
of his employment as a result of his coworker's actions. Therefore,
even when viewed in a light most favorable to complainant, his claims
are too isolated and insufficiently severe to establish a hostile work
environment. Consequently, his complaint was properly dismissed pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons
set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
February 8, 2000
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
__________________________
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.
2The Commission takes notice that complainant filed at least thirteen
complaints on the same day. The Commission cautions complainant that
it retains the right to protect its processes and procedures from
misuse and abuse. However, at present, the Commission will not find
that complainant is abusing its processes. See Kessinger v. USPS, EEOC
Request No. 05970408 (May 30, 1997); Kleinman v. USPS, EEOC Request
No. 05940579 et al. (September 22, 1994); Hooks v. USPS, EEOC Appeal
No. 01953852 et al. (November 28, 1995).