Yu C. Stough, Complainant,v.William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, Army & Air Force Exchange, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 9, 1999
01a03544 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 9, 1999)

01a03544

11-09-1999

Yu C. Stough, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, Army & Air Force Exchange, Agency.


Yu C. Stough v. Department of Defense - Army & Air Force Exchange

01A03544

08-10-00

.

Yu C. Stough,

Complainant,

v.

William S. Cohen,

Secretary,

Department of Defense,

Army & Air Force Exchange,

Agency.

Appeal No.01A03544

Agency No. 99-113

DECISION

Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37, 659 (1999) (to be codified at 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405), the Commission accepts the complainant's appeal

from the agency's final decision in the above-entitled matter.<1>

Complainant filed a complaint in which she claimed that the agency

subjected her to a hostile work environment between April 19 and June 7,

1999, because of her race (Asian), national origin (Korean), sex, and

mental disability (anxiety and depression). Her claim arose in connection

with the following incidents: criticism by her supervisor for the way she

paged employees on April 30 and May 6, 1999; being scheduled to work the

employee register beginning April 24, 1999, but only given five minutes

of training on the employee register; not being paid for work done on

May 6, 1999; having her schedule changed for April 29, 1999, with only

one day's notice; being scheduled for closing shift only, effective

May 6, 1999; and being called at home on May 11, 1999, by the operations

manager. She also claimed that she was subjected to reprisal on June 7,

1999, in connection with comments made by the general manager during a

discussion of her step 1 grievance. The agency investigated the matter and

notified complainant of her right to request either a hearing or a final

agency decision without a hearing. Complainant opted for the latter,

and the agency ultimately issued a final decision of no discrimination,

from which complainant now appeals.<2> For the purposes of this analysis,

we will assume that the complainant is an individual with a disability.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g).

We address complainant's harassment claim first. In order to establish

a claim of discriminatory harassment, complainant must show that she

was subjected to conduct that had the purpose or effect of unreasonably

interfering with her work performance or creating an intimidating,

hostile, or offensive work environment because of her race, national

origin, or disability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th

Cir. 1982). In this case, complainant failed to show that those who took

the actions she complained of were motivated by considerations of her

race, national origin, or disability. Regarding the paging incident,

the supervisor stated that he criticized everyone for the manner

in which they paged employees, not just complainant. Several other

witnesses corroborated his statement. As to the incident regarding

training and scheduling, several of complainant's co-workers who were

not of her protected groups also reported being given minimal training

and having their schedules changed on a moment's notice. Regarding the

incident involving her not being paid, complainant admitted that she

forgot to sign out on the day in question, and that the oversight had

been corrected. As to having to work the night shift, another employee

not of complainant's protected racial group stated that she was also

given a nights-only work schedule. Finally, with respect to being called

at home, the operations manager called complainant at home because she

had applied for a permanent position, and the manager needed to know

if she was still interested in being interviewed for that position.

Complainant has not presented any evidence that undermines or contradicts

the affidavits given by the agency's witnesses regarding the various

incidents comprising her claim of hostile work environment. Accordingly,

we find that complainant has not established that she had been subjected

to discriminatory harassment. We now address her reprisal claim.

To prevail on a claim of reprisal, complainant must satisfy the three-part

evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must initially establish a prima

facie of reprisal by showing that she engaged in protected EEO activity,

that the agency was aware of that activity, and that she was subjected

to an adverse action at such a time or in such a manner as to support a

causal connection between the two events. Frye v. Department of Labor,

EEOC Request No. 05940764 (December 15, 1994). The burden then shifts

to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is

pretextual. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

The record in this case clearly establishes that the comments referred to

by complainant were made in connection with a union grievance unrelated

to any EEO activity. Consequently, we find that complainant failed to

establish that she was subjected to unlawful reprisal.

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

because the preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that

discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.

2Although the agency identified the issue as one of hostile work

environment, it analyzed this case as a claim of disparate treatment in

connection with the terms and conditions of complainant's employment,

rather than a harassment claim.