What does EEOC consider an aggrieved employee?
The Commission’s federal sector case precedent has long defined an “aggrieved employee” as
one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). In addition, the Commission has held further that where a complaint does not challenge an agency action or inaction regarding a specific term, condition, or privilege of employment, the claim may survive as evidence of harassment if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the complainant’s employment. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).
Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe to trigger a violation of EEO statutes must be determined by looking at all of the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity,
whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. See id.; Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift
Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994).
