EEOC Request No. 0520140315
10-09-2014
Complainant v. Dep't of the Treasury
Complainant,
v.
Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request No. 0520140315
Appeal No. 0120133289
Agency No. 01-3067
DENIAL
The Agency timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133289 (March 21, 2014). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(c).
On January 17, 2002, Complainant filed a motion to amend a previously filed complaint that was before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 8, 2004, the AJ issued an order denying Complainant's motion to amend and directing the Agency "to process the Complainant's new claim of discrimination, i.e., Complainant's proposed re-assignment to Washington, D.C., effective April 7, 2002, as a separate EEO complaint." On July 23, 2013, Complainant filed an appeal asserting that the Agency had not processed his EEO complaint as directed by the AJ.
The appellate decision noted that it was unable to determine from the record whether or not the Agency had processed Complainant's claim as directed. The appellate decision ordered the Agency to: (1) provide Complainant with a copy of the investigative file and final action if it had already completed processing of the claim; or (2) process the claim if it had not already done so.
In its request for reconsideration, the Agency emphasized that Complainant waited over nine years before pursuing this matter further and requested that we dismiss Complainant's appeal. First, the Agency argued that complying with the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on its practices and operations. Specifically, the Agency asserted that it was impossible to provide Complainant with a copy of the records related to his claim because it had destroyed all related official records pursuant to its record retention policies. Moreover, the Agency asserted that it would be very difficult to attempt to process Complainant's claim at this time because many records no longer existed, many witnesses were no longer employed by the Agency, and the ability of available witnesses to correctly recall the relevant facts could be severely impacted by the passage of time. Second, the Agency argued that the appellate decision should have applied the doctrine of laches because Complainant waited over nine years to pursue his claim and Complainant was familiar with the EEO process based on his work as a Personnel Management Specialist.
Upon review, we find that the Agency's request for reconsideration does not demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Specifically, we find that the Agency's generalized and speculative assertions are insufficient to demonstrate that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on its practices and operations. Moreover, we find that the appellate decision did not clearly err in not applying the doctrine of laches. The Commission has held that complainants must act with due diligence in the pursuit of their claims or the doctrine of laches may be applied. The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual's failure to diligently pursue his actions could bar his claim. See O'Dell v. Dep't of Health & Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05901130 (Dec. 27, 1990). Here, the record contains no evidence that the Agency, at any time between 2004 and 2013, complied with the AJ's order to process Complainant's claim as a separate EEO complaint. In Gunn v. Small Bus. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0120080844 (Apr. 23, 2010), the Commission found that the doctrine of laches was not applicable because the Agency's culpability in not issuing the complainant in that case a notice of right to file a formal complaint after the termination of informal counseling outweighed any failure by the complainant to diligently pursue her claim. Similarly, in this case, we find that the doctrine of laches is not applicable because the Agency's culpability in not complying with the AJ's order outweighed any failure by Complainant to diligently pursue his claim.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120133289 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. The Agency shall comply with the Order as set forth below.
ORDER
If the Agency has already completed processing Complainant's "new" claims of discrimination referenced in the AJ's July 8, 2004 Order, it shall send Complainant a copy of its final action, as well as a copy of any investigative report and record, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
To the extent it has not already done so, the Agency is ordered to expeditiously process the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108 et seq. The Agency shall acknowledge to Complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred (100) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If Complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of Complainant's request.
A copy of the Agency's letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency's report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the Agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the Complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the Commission. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__10/9/14________________
Date
2
0520140315
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140315