U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Nenita S,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120180073 Agency No. 4C-440-0161-17 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated September 12, 2017, dismissing a formal 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 During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier at the Agency's Saris, Ohio Post Office. On July 14, 2017, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact. Informal efforts to resolve her concerns were unsuccessful. On August 17, 2017, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on sex and in reprisal for prior EEO activity. On September 12, 2017, the Agency issued a final decision. The Agency found that the formal complaint was comprised of the following claims: 1. on August 4, 2016, the Postmaster yelled at her, accused Complainant of yelling at her, and told her that she could not listen to music on her headphones; 2. on September 21, 2016, she was issued a Letter of Warning; 3. on April 25, 2017, the Postmaster laughed at her and told her she listened to her conversations at work through a headset she had in her car; 4. on May 11, 2017, a co-worker told her that the Postmaster had told her about a grievance she had filed; 5. on unspecified dates, the Postmaster threatened to give her a Pre-Disciplinary Interview; and 6. on or around July 26, 2017, she was given a driving observation by the Postmaster. The Agency dismissed claims 1 - 4 for untimely EEO Counselor contact, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency determined that Complainant's initial EEO Counselor contact was on July 14, 2017, which it found to be beyond the 45-day limitation period regarding these claims. The Agency then dismissed claims 5 - 6 for failure to state a claim to pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), finding that Complainant was not aggrieved. The Agency found that unless the conduct is severe, a single incident or group of isolated incidents will not be considered discriminatory harassment. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Claims 5 - 6 (failure to state a claim) The Agency improperly dismissed claims 5 - 6 for failure to state a claim. 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 or disabling condition. 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. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). Contrary to the manner in which the formal complaint was identified in the final decision, the instant formal complaint and EEO Counselor's Report reflect a more detailed series of alleged incidents. Specifically, Complainant stated that she was constantly subjected to harassment by the Postmaster. In her complaint, Complainant stated that Agency management and union "have not been able to fully understand the severity of the situation. Although we have tried, nothing harsher done to remedy [Postmaster's] obsession and she is getting worse...I am truly very scared and worried for my safety." Moreover, Complainant, on appeal, stated that no one has told the Postmaster "to stop the '[Complainant's first name] Journal' she has on me so far as anyone knows she is still writing in it. And has not been disciplined for it." Complainant further stated that the Postmaster retaliated against her by giving her a Pre-Disciplinary Interview and a Letter of Warning for filing an EEO complaint. Moreover, Complainant stated "I feel that if [Postmaster] is not removed permanently from my office or even the postal service for that matter, she will continue to harass me until she gets rid of me." As a remedy, Complainant requested to be transferred or that the Postmaster be transferred. By alleging a pattern of harassment, Complainant has stated a cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations. See Cervantes v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05930303 (November 12, 1993). Claims 1 - 4 (EEO Counselor contact) The Agency also improperly dismissed claims 1 - 4 on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on February 15, 2017. The Commission has held that "[b]ecause the incidents that make up a hostile work environment claim collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice, the entire claim is actionable, as long, as at least one incident that is part of the claim occurred within the filing period. This includes incidents that occurred outside the filing period that the [Complainant] knew or should have known were actionable at the time of their occurrence." EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 2, Threshold Issues at 2 - 75 (revised July 21, 2005) (citing National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002)). The various incidents comprising Complainant's hostile work environment claim occurred within the 45-day time period preceding Complainant's July 14, 2017 EEO Counselor contact, as discussed above. Because a fair reading of the record reflects that the matter identified in claims 1 - 4 is part of that harassment claim, we find that the Agency improperly dismissed this claim on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. We REVERSE the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's formal complaint, defined herein as a harassment claim, and we REMAND this matter to the Agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below. ORDER (E1016) The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claim (harassment/hostile work environment) 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 8, 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 0120180073 6 0120180073