01980783
01-06-2000
William J. Stokes, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.
William J. Stokes v. United States Postal Service
01980783
January 6, 2000
William J. Stokes, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01980783
v. )
) Agency No. 4F-926-0035-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of race (Caucasian) and sex (male), in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>
Complainant alleges he was discriminated against when his supervisor
harassed him upon his return from a suspension. The Commission accepts
this appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following
reasons, we AFFIRM as clarified the agency's decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as a part-time Flexible Letter Carrier, at the agency's Glendora,
California Post Office. Complainant alleged that after he returned from
a suspension on October 15, 1996, his supervisor began harassing him.
He stated that his supervisor engaged in the following conduct: made
unnecessary comments about his suspension; threatened him with another
suspension; told him he could not opt for an open route; followed him on
his route for more than an hour; yelled at him for a perceived safety
violation; took away his larger postal vehicle; and required him to
clock-out without allowing him time to unload his vehicle. Complainant
also stated that on November 1, 1996, after he requested sick leave,
his supervisor demanded that he provide medical documentation by the
close of business that day.
Complainant's supervisor (Hispanic, female) responded with the following:
she did not threaten him with another suspension; she did not tell him
that he could not opt for an open route; she performed a routine check of
his driving practices; she did not yell at him regarding a safety hazard
but instead notified him of the problem so that he could correct it;
she took his larger vehicle to assign to a business route with a high
quantity of mail; and she instructed him to clock out immediately so
that he would not go into penalty overtime. She further stated that
on November 1, 1996, she did instruct complainant to provide medical
documentation to substantiate his sickness.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on December 3, 1996.
The agency accepted the complaint for processing, and at the conclusion
of the investigation, complainant was granted thirty days to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or an immediate FAD.
After complainant failed to request a hearing within the thirty-day time
period, the agency issued a FAD finding no discrimination.
The FAD concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race or sex discrimination because he presented no evidence
that similarly situated individuals not in his protected classes were
treated differently under similar circumstances. The FAD nevertheless
concluded that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions and that complainant did not establish that more
likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask
unlawful discrimination. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal,
and the agency requests that we affirm the FAD.
Initially, we note that the agency failed to address complainant's
harassment claim. Complainant asserts that his supervisor's actions
constituted harassment based on his race and sex. As the FAD failed to
provide an analysis of the harassment claim, the Commission will address
it here.
Harassment of an employee that would not occur but for the employee's
race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion or prior
EEO activity is unlawful, if it is sufficiently patterned or pervasive.
Wibstad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972699
(Aug. 14, 1998) (citing McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129, 1138-39
(D.C. Cir. 1985)); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc. at 3, 9 (March 8, 1994). In determining that a work
environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the
alleged discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically
threatening or humiliating, and if it unreasonably interferes with an
employee's work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510
U.S. 17, 21 (1993); Enforcement Guidance at 6. The Supreme Court has
stated that: "Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an
objectively hostile work environment - an environment that a reasonable
person would find hostile or abusive - is beyond Title VII's purview."
Harris, 510 U.S. at 22 (1993).
To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment, a
complainant must show that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected
class; (2) he was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal
or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on the statutorily protected class; and (4)
the harassment 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.
Humphrey v. United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 01965238 (October
16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. � 1604.11. Evidence of the general work atmosphere,
involving employees other than the complainant, also is relevant to the
issue of whether a hostile environment existed in violation of Title VII.
Vinson v. Taylor, 753 F.2d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 1985), aff'd in relevant
part and rev'd in part, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57
(1986).
In reviewing the evidence, we find that complainant has failed to
establish a prima facie case of harassment. Complainant has not presented
sufficient credible evidence demonstrating that he was subjected to
unwelcome conduct based on his protected classes. While he may have
perceived his supervisor's actions as unwelcome and harassing, nothing
in the record indicates that her actions were anything other than her
performing her supervisory duties. We also find that complainant failed
to demonstrate any racial and gender animus on the part of his supervisor.
Finally, we find that the evidence failed to show that the conduct in
question was either severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile
work environment. We conclude that a reasonable person would not find
the conduct in question hostile or abusive.
As for complainant's disparate treatment claim, we find that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination.
While complainant asserts that he received less favorable treatment,
other than his bare assertion, he provides no credible evidence to
support his statement. Further, we find nothing in the record from
which to infer that any of the supervisor's actions were as a result
of discriminatory animus toward complainant's race or sex. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
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:
January 6, 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 after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________
Date
__________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
1 On 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.