ISSUES:

Do the grievant's May 12 and September 6, 2000 claims that his supervisor was harassing, hostile and retaliatory qualify for hearing?

Should the grievant's May 12 and September 6, 2000 grievances be consolidated for hearing with his October 26, 2000 grievance challenging a Group II Written Notice for alleged refusal to follow supervisory instructions?

RULING:

The grievances of May 12 and September 6, 2000 do not present issues that qualify for a hearing as independent claims for which separate relief may be granted. For information regarding the grievant's options as a result of this ruling, please refer to the enclosed sheet. If the grievant wishes to appeal this determination to the circuit court, the grievant should notify the Human Resources Office, in writing, within five workdays of the receipt of this ruling. If the court should qualify the grievance, within five workdays of the receipt of the court's decision, the agency will request the appointment of a hearing officer, unless the grievant notifies the agency that he/she does not want to proceed.

Because the May 12 and September 6, 2000 grievances do not qualify for a hearing, they may not be consolidated with the grievance of October 26, 2000 as independent claims for which separate relief may be granted. However, at the hearing on his October 26 grievance, the grievant may offer evidence of the alleged instances cited in his May 12 and September 6 grievances to support his contention that his Group II Written Notice was retaliatory or otherwise unwarranted.

 
EXPLANATION:

The grievant's May 12 and September 6, 2000 grievances allege that his supervisor's conduct was generally harassing, hostile and retaliatory, and that his supervisor falsified a state document to set him up for an unwarranted reprimand, and reassigned a certain duty to another employee. The May 12 and September 6 grievances do not allege any discrimination on the basis of the grievant's membership in a protected class (race, sex, color, age, national origin, disability, religion, or political affiliation), or that state policy provisions were misapplied or unfairly applied. These grievance records do indicate grievant's belief that his supervisor was retaliating against him for having filed an earlier grievance in 1999.

For a claim of retaliation to qualify for a hearing, there must be evidence raising a sufficient question as to whether (1) the employee engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employee suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.¹

The grievant clearly engaged in a protected activity when he filed his 1999 grievance.² And there is some evidence presented in his May 12 and September 6, 2000 grievances that his supervisor's conduct toward him was generally not pleasant. However, the May 12 and September 6 grievances do not present sufficient evidence that the supervisor's alleged behavior constituted an adverse employment action, which by definition must have significant detrimental effect on factors such as the grievant's hiring, firing, compensation, job title, level of responsibility, or opportunity for promotion.³ Claims of supervisory hostility alone, absent a clear impact on the terms of the grievant's employment, do not present grounds for a qualifiable retaliation claim. Indeed, this Department has long held that general supervisory harassment, however unprofessional, does not qualify in and of itself for a hearing.

The parties should note, however, that this ruling in no way prevents the grievant from challenging his Group II Written Notice at hearing on the basis of retaliation, unwarranted ill will, or any other ground, or from offering as background evidence at hearing any of the incidents referenced in his May 12 and September 6 grievances. Of course, at the hearing, the hearing officer will have the authority to decide the admissibility and materiality of all evidence.