U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ellsworth S,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120172972 Agency No. 4E-980-0093-17 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated August 4, 2017, dismissing his complaint of unlawful 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Manager. Customer Services at the Agency's Covington Station facility in Kent, Washington. On June 5, 2017, Complainant contacted the EEO Counselor alleging discrimination. When the matter could not be resolved informally, on July 17, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of national origin (Hispanic/Puerto Rican)2 and sex (male) when: 1. On November 21, 2016, Complainant assumed that the Manager of Delivery Customer Service (Manager) was helping a coworker prepare for an interview and this coworker was eventually selected the position for which Complainant applied. 2. On December 1, 2016, another coworker left their computer unlocked and left work early without consequence. However, Complainant is held accountable for such actions. 3. On December 5, 2016, Complainant was told that there would be a meeting arranged for him and the Manager to iron out differences, however, that meeting never happened. 4. On December 7, 2016, he was informed that he did not get the Managerial position because they needed to select someone who could get along with the Manager. 5. On December 21, 2016, he asked to have his access changed to the Manager, Customer Service Tacoma, however he was given unit access while his District access was taken away. 6. From January 9, 2017 through January 13, 2017, 40 hours of annul leave was taken from his balance even though he worked during that time. 7. On February 10, 2017, Complainant was singled out on a telecom regarding five Amazon failures at his office. 8. On May 2, 2017, Complainant became aware that a manager was assisting another coworker with interview preparation for the level 20 Manager Customer Services position for which Complainant applied. 9. On May 2, 2017, after interviewing for the Level 20 Manager position, the Manager brought in a copy of discipline that was not in his Official Personnel File (OPF) and stated that he should be disqualified from the position. The Agency dismissed claims (6), (8), and (9) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency dismissed claim (6) noting that the week identified by Complainant indicated that he was paid as working in "Finance" and not charged with annual leave as he asserted. In claims (8) and (9), the Agency held that these events were "common workplace occurrences" which do not state a claim. As such, the Agency held that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to any harm as to these three events. The Agency then dismissed claims (1) - (7) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Agency noted that these events occurred well outside of the 45-day time limit and Complainant provided no argument to extend the time frame. As, the Agency dismissed the complaint as a whole. This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant indicated that the Manager does not like him and has taken steps to make things difficult for him. He stated that he spoke to another management official about his goals and how the Manager creates a hostile work environment. She makes him extremely uncomfortable like he must walk on egg shells. He noted that the Manager aided the selectee; interfered with his access to the Agency's computer system, and called him out for five Amazon errors for which he learned his office only had two. He asserted that he had hoped that he and the Manager could move beyond their differences but it didn't seem possible anymore. The Agency responded to the appeal asking that the Commission affirm its decision. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Untimeliness The Agency dismissed claims (1) - (7) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2). EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2) states that the Agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in §1614.105, §1614.106 and §1614.204(c), unless the Agency extends the time limits in accordance with §1614.604(c). EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1614.105(a)(2) allows the Agency or the Commission to extend the time limit if Complainant can establish that Complainant was not aware of the time limit, that Complainant did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence complainant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the EEO Counselor within the time limit, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the Agency or Commission. We note that the Supreme Court of the United States held that a complainant alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002). The Court further held, however, that "discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges." Id. The Court defined such "discrete discriminatory acts" to include acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire, acts that constitute separate actionable unlawful employment practices. Id. Finally, the Court held that such untimely discrete acts may be used as background evidence in support of a timely claim. Id. Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant alleged that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment. In support of his claim of harassment, Complainant listed the events identified by the Agency as claims (1) - (9). Some of the events raised by Complainant occurred within the filing period. As such, Complainant's claim of harassment is not time barred and we find that the Agency's dismissal of the complaint was improper. Failure to State a Claim The Agency also dismissed claims (6), (8) and (9) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint 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, disabling condition, genetic information, or reprisal. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .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. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). In his complaint, Complainant alleged a series of events that allegedly occurred from November 2016 to May 2017. Instead of treating these events as incidents of the claim of harassment, however, the Agency looked at them individually. Thus, we find that the Agency acted improperly by treating matters raised in Complainant's complaint in a piecemeal manner. See Meaney v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169 (Nov. 3, 1994) (an agency should not ignore the "pattern aspect" of a complainant's claims and define the issues in a piecemeal manner where an analogous theme unites the matter complained of). Consequently, when Complainant's claims are viewed in the context of Complainant's complaint of harassment, they state a claim and the Agency's dismissal of claims (6), (8), and (9) was improper. Complainant has shown an injury or harm to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. CONCLUSION Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we REVERSE the Agency's final decision and REMAND the matter in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER (E1016) The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision was issued. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was issued, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant's request. A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0617) Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be in the digital format required by the Commission, and submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0617) 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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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. Complainant's request 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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 (R0610) This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. 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 20, 2017 __________________ 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 Complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of race (Puerto Rican) and stated on appeal he is Hispanic. The Commission notes that it considers the term "Hispanic" to be a national origin rather than a racial group. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0120172972 2 0120172972