NC-226 - Harassment

The Appellant filed a harassment complaint (Complaint) against an Administration and Personnel Officer (Alleged Harasser) who engaged with the Appellant during the grievance process. The Appellant was of the view that the Alleged Harasser was her assistant for the purpose of helping her resolve her grievances and that he changed roles during the grievance process. The Appellant alleged that the Alleged Harasser failed to provide requested materials to the Appellant, allowed a retired member to participate in the grievance process who had previously retaliated against the Appellant, breached her privacy by providing her protected information to two individuals who had been removed from participating in the grievance process, named an Assistant for the grievance respondents, retaliated against her and failed to act when she told him that she was experiencing retaliation from other members.   

The Appellant submitted a written request that the Respondent recuse himself. The Respondent did not recuse himself nor did he provide the Appellant with written reasons for not recusing himself. 

A “limited investigation” had been initially mandated. Shortly afterwards, the Respondent issued a Decision concluding that the Alleged Harasser’s actions did not amount to harassment and that he did not need to mandate an investigation into her Complaint. The Appellant appealed the Respondent’s decision.

On appeal, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent breached her procedural fairness rights when he ignored her request that he recuse himself. The Appellant also alleged that she did not have a fair opportunity to be heard and that the Decision was clearly unreasonable because the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient. 

The ERC found that the Respondent’s failure to provide written reasons in response to the Appellant’s request for recusal resulted in procedural unfairness to the Appellant. The Decision was also procedurally unfair because the Appellant was not given an opportunity to provide information to supplement her Complaint. In addition, the ERC found that all the new evidence and submissions provided by the Appellant were inadmissible with the exception of two letters that the Appellant submitted to the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals (OCGA).

The ERC recommended that the appeal be allowed and that the matter be remitted to a new decision-maker for a new decision. Even though the Alleged Harasser retired during the harassment appeal process, the ERC still recommended that the Appellant is given an opportunity to provide supplemental submissions in support of her Complaint and that the new decision-maker assess if there is sufficient information to address the Complaint. Finally, the ERC recommended that the Appellant’s letters that she submitted to the OCGA form a part of any eventual analysis of the merits of the Complaint by the new decision-maker. 

The Adjudicator agreed with the ERC Findings and Recommendations and as such, adopted the ERC Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as their reasons for concluding for that this appeal be allowed.