DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
By its decision and order dated December 7, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) remanded this matter with instructions to the hearing officer.1 On March 7 and 8, 2006, Hearing Officer Michael Doheny held a hearing pursuant to the remand and subsequently issued his dispositive decision, holding that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in Counts I and II. Hearing Officer Doheny also found that as a result of Petitioner’s failure to meet his burden in Counts I and II, he could not establish a hostile work environment based on the alleged retaliatory conduct, as pled in Count III.
Upon due consideration of the hearing officer’s decision and order, and the parties filings, the Board affirms the hearing officer’s determination of no discrimination. With respect to Counts I and III, the Board is satisfied that the hearing officer’s decision is supported by substantial record evidence and that the hearing officer employed the correct legal principles and analyses in reaching his result.
With respect to Count II, the Board agrees with the hearing officer’s conclusion that the evidence presented did not support an inference of discrimination. Specifically, the Board agrees with the hearing officer’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between Petitioner’s protected activity and Architect Hantman’s lack of response to Petitioner’s formal grievance: Petitioner failed to present any evidence of disparate treatment, and the hearing officer determined that there was no causal connection between the activity and the alleged wrongful act. The Board finds this determination to be supported by the evidence.
The Board does not adopt, however, the hearing officer’s rationale that because Petitioner continued with his protected activity, the AOC’s actions amounted to a “petty slight” or a “trivial annoyance” and were not “reasonably likely to deter” protected activity. In Britton v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 02-AC-20 (CV, RP)(May 23, 2005), the Board explained its “reasonably likely to deter” standard:
