Decision

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's appeal from the agency's May 11, 2007, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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.

Complainant contacted an* EEO counselor on February 20, 2006, and filed his formal complaint on May 14, 2006.¹ He alleged that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of race (black) and subjected him to a hostile work environment when (a) his supervisor (S1) assigned him additional duties after an employee (MM) left in early January 2006; and (b) a Manager (MD) subjected him to character assassination and public ridicule during meetings in January and March 2006. Following an investigation,² complainant initially requested a hearing but withdrew his request, and the agency issued the decision before us.

At the time of these events, complainant worked as a Supply Systems Analyst, GS-13, in the Logistics Clinical Office.³  In October 2005, the office reorganized, and he was moved from materials management to the standardization team; in addition, he had responsibility for a recall program under the supervision of Manager D (MD). According to complainant, MD initially approved his operation of the program, but, after he complained directly to a higher-level manager, MD criticized him about the recall program in two public meetings.⁴ His managers denied that he was harassed or subjected to a hostile work environment, i.e., S1 stated that MM's duties were assigned among several staff, and MD stated he did not believe that complainant was publicly derided or criticized, although he acknowledged that he and other managers were critical of complainant's failure to provide reports timely and to carry out his assignment regarding the recall. The agency concluded that complainant failed to show that the agency's actions were based on racial animus, that they were sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of illegal harassment, or that the workplace was riddled with intimidation, ridicule, and insult such that the conditions of his job were affected.⁵

After a review of the record in its entirety, including arguments not addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
 

^{... 1}  We affirm the agency's dismissal of claims filed in an untimely manner or previously raised by complainant.

²  We note that the investigator stated that the complaint was assigned for investigation on November 20, 2006, which was more than six months following the filing of complainant's formal complaint. The agency is reminded that it is required to complete its investigation within 180 days. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e)

³  Complainant left work in February-March 2006, and did not return; he was terminated in August 2006, and filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) (Docket No. DC-0752-06-0881-I-1), claiming, inter alia, discrimination based on disability and reprisal. On March 9, 2007, a MSPB AJ issued an Initial Decision, which became final on April 13, 2007. Although given a right to request review by the Commission, complainant did not do so.

⁴  Complainant asserted that the work he was asked to perform involved policy and medical decisions that should have been made by an agency manager or medical professional.

⁵  See Cobb v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997), citing Harris v. Forklift Systems,Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant's employment).