‘US. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Buffalo Local Office ‘Foran See 359 fy ss038 eka Thon extn Shao ‘Dee Frqwstan ‘Angela M. Nagle 587 Boght Road Cohoes, NY 12047 Ryan M. Finn Jones, Hacker, Murphy ‘7 Airport Park Boulevard Latham, NY" 12110 Re: Angela M. Nagle v. East Greenbush Central School (Charge No. 525-2015-00593 Dear Dr. Nagle : ‘The Equal Employment Opportanity Commission (hectnafter referred to as the "Commision", has reviewed the above-referenced charge according to our charge prioritization procedures. ‘These procedures, which are based on a realocetion of the Commission's staff resources, apply to all open charges in our inventory and call for us to focus our limited resources on these cates that are most likely to result in findings of violations of the laws we enforce. In accordance with these procedures, we have examined your charge based upon the information and evidence submitted. The Commission makes a determination by looking at the evidence and ‘Weighing it against the differing explanations given by the two parties. As you can imagine, it seldom comes dow to one factor one piece of evidence determining whether there is violation of the law. ‘You alleged that, because of your pregnancy and in retaliation, Respondent harassed you, stereotyped you as a woman and discharged you. ‘With regard tothe stereotyping you as a woman, that might be included within the category of hharassment, but itis the Commission's assessment that whet you reported as stereotyping Was closer to politically incorrect behavior than to harassment. Likewise, your other allegations of | hharassment based on pregnancy do not appear to rise to the level of harassment. You claimed that men on the Bosrd and in administration: 1) didnot congratulate you on your pregnancy; 2) {id not look you in the eye; 3) did not congratulate you onthe bizth of your children; 4 stared at you when you walked by; and 5) stopped talking when you walked by. These things may not be Socially correct but they are not harassment; they do not create & hostile eavizonment.525-2015-00593 Letter to Angela M. Nagle Page -2- ‘With regard to your claim thet Respondent violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when you ind eesdraton of conc exeson an Respondent si wo", you sed Monel Douglas Corp. v. Green, Texas D: and Reeves v ee ‘opinions forall thre of those cases the US Supreme Court stated that to establish a prime facie ‘ase you must show that Respondent was offering a job opportunity. In McDonnell Douglas the ‘Court states thatthe employee or applicant must show: “that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicans”. Ia Burding the Court states that the ‘employee of epplicant must show that: “she applied for ax available position for which she was ‘qualified... Sanderson Plumbing Products adopts the MeDonnell Douglas standard for establishing a prima facie case. When you requested the coniract extensions it was on your initiative; the Respondent was not seeking applicants for an available position. You donot have s prima facie case AAs for Respondent initiating an offer to you of a new contract beginning July 1, 2016, we would ‘expect that there was some proper time for Respondent to do thet. ‘The fact that they didn't may be @ harm, a job opportunity that should have existed. But even if Respondent did, in effect, jscharge you by not offering negotiate a new contract to begin on July 1, 2016, Respondent has provided a nondiscriminatory reason for its inaction. You have seen Respondents written position statement. The Commission concludes that Respondents explanation for choosing not to offer you a contact is more credible than your explanation, [Based upon this analysis the Commission is unable to conclude that the information establishes @ violation of federal law on the purt of Respondent. This does not certify that Respondent ‘compliance withthe statutes. No finding is made as to any other issue that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. ‘The Commission's processing of this charge has been concluded. Included with this letter is your Notice of Dismissal and Right to Sue, Following this dismissal, you may only pursue this matter by filing suit against the Respondent named in the charge with 90 days of receipt of suid notice. Otherwise, your right to sue will be lost. Please contact David Ging at (716) 551-3035 if you Ihave any questions. incerel Nov 2 4 2or5 Dy — John B, Director Date Enel: Dismissal end Notice of Right to Sueorem 2 U.S. EQual EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CoMMISSION DiswissaL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS ro; Angola M. Nagle From Buffalo Local Office S87 Bogkt Rosa 8 Fountain Plaza Gohos NY 12047 Suite 350, Bulfalo, NY 14202 cpt ra res nr ty co CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR $1601 Ti) TEEOG Grp EEOC Resreseltve David Ging, 525-2015-00503 Investigator (716) 554-3085 ‘THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: ‘The fat godin the charge flo stato lam uncer anf the sates enforced by the EOS. oy "Yur sepasions did nat vv a cebity as dained by tho American Wh Disabites At “The Respondent enpays ess than he reed number of ployee ois nt atherlss covered by be ates ‘Yur charge was not timely fed with EEOC; in ether words, you wailed foo long afr the das) ofthe aleged