EEOC Appeal 2020001486

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alejandro B,1
Complainant,
v.
Richard Tischner,
Director
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020001486
Agency No. CSOSA-EEO-F-20-0002
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission) from the Agency's decision, dated December 3, 2019, 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 Community
Supervision Officer, GL-12, at the Agency’s Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
facility in Washington, DC.
On November 21, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging unlawful retaliation when
he was subjected to a hostile work environment when:
1. 	on August 1, 2019, a coworker emailed Complainant alleging “egregious” errors
within Complainant’s Core Case Management Activities and Special Core Case
Management Activities; and
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.

2020001486	2
2. 	on October 22, 2019, the coworker called Complainant’s agency cell phone and
threatened him by stating, “this is my last time telling you about talking with my
SCSO and my clients” and hung up.
Complainant claims that he filed previous complaints of discrimination on July 30, 2019, August
2, 2019, and October 22, 2019. Yet, when asked by the EEO Counselor if these issues arose from
or were related to his previous EEO complaints he stated that he believed he was retaliated against
for reporting the coworker’s errors to management, who failed to take appropriate corrective
action.
The Agency dismissed the November 21, 2019 complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1),
for failure to state a claim. The Agency reasoned that Complainant was alleging he was “reprised
against for complaining about a non-discriminatory matter to [his] supervisor, specifically,
reporting that [his] coworker threatened [Complainant] after [Complainant] reported errors found
within his former caseload.” The Agency dismissed the complaint, because it concluded
Complainant did not raise a matter covered under the governing EEOC regulations or statutes.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The anti-retaliation provisions of the employment discrimination statutes seek to prevent an
employer from interfering with an employee’s efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the
statutes’ basic guarantees and are not limited to actions affecting employment terms and
conditions. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405
(2006). To state a viable claim of retaliation, a complainant must allege that: 1) he was subjected
to an action which a reasonable employee would have found materially adverse, and 2) the action
could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Id.
See also EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, No. 915.004 (August
25, 2016); Carroll v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970939 (April 4, 2000).
Here, we agree with the Agency that it is clear from his formal complaint and related EEO
counseling report that Complainant is not alleging that he was retaliated against because he
engaged in prior activity protected under Title VII. Rather, he is asserting that the coworker was
harassing him because he had previously reported errors by the coworker to management.
Complainant does not allege that he reported any discriminatory conduct on the part of the
coworker. 	Without any allegation that the retaliation was in response to protected activity, we
conclude that Complainant cannot prove that the alleged harassment could dissuade a reasonable
employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

2020001486	3
Further, to the extent that Complainant is alleging that his coworker’s comments have created a
hostile work environment, 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. Thus, not all claims of harassment are actionable. As noted by the
Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998): “simple teasing,
offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to
discriminatory changes in the ‘terms and conditions of employment’.” Following a review of the
record, we find that in the instant case, viewing the allegations together and assuming they
occurred as alleged, Complainant fails to state a viable claim of a discriminatory hostile work
environment. The actions alleged, without more, are simply insufficiently severe or pervasive to
state a valid hostile work environment claim.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint.
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.

2020001486	4
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 (S0610)
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 (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
September 29, 2020
Date