Felicia Coleman v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy

The Navy improperly dismissed Complainant Coleman’s claims of harassment and discrimination because the agency failed to address the pattern of harassment and instead focused on each detailed incident individually. Coleman, a female Police Officer at the Navy Yard facility in Washington DC, submitted a complaint to the Navy detailing a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the bases of sex, disability, and reprisal for prior EEO protected activity. In determining whether a complainant’s harassment claims sufficiently state a hostile or abusive work environment, the agency must look at all of the complained of incidents together as a whole. When looking at the incidents together, a pattern of harassment developed, which made it sufficient for the agency to address Coleman’s complaints.

See Coleman v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121880 (September 7, 2012); see also Estate of Routson v. Nat’l Aeronautics and Space Admin., EEOC Request No. 05970388 (February 26, 1999); Phillips v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July 12, 1996); Banks v. Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05940481 (February 16, 1995); Meaney v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169 (November 3, 1994).

(Development authored by Samantha Aster)