01991144
03-13-2000
Wallace L. Hathorne, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Wallace L. Hathorne v. Department of the Army
01991144
March 13, 2000
Wallace L. Hathorne, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01991144
) Agency No. 9809I0180
Louis Caldera, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Army, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On November 19, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) received by him on
October 23, 1998, pertaining to his complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant
alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race
(African-American).
By notice dated October 1, 1998, the agency initially accepted the
complaint, defined as: complainant was told during the 1997 RIF that
his position in the Engineering Division (Bridge Inspection Program)
would be abolished; complainant learned on August 10, 1998, that a white
male was sent for training in bridge inspection work. On October 6,
1997, complainant asked that the claim be revised to read as follows:
complainant was told during the 1997 RIF that his position in the
Engineering Division (Bridge Inspection Program) was abolished;
complainant learned on August 10, 1998 that a white male was sent for
training in bridge inspection work.
On October 16, 1998, the agency dismissed the claim as revised for
untimely counselor contact. Specifically, the agency found that the
RIF was completed on October 18, 1997, but complainant did not contact
an EEO Counselor within the next forty-five days. Further, the agency
found that complainant's discovery of the training given to a white
engineer did not toll the time limits. The agency also found that
complainant failed to state a claim because he was not aggrieved by the
white worker's receipt of training.
Complainant's notice-of-right-to-file a complaint was dated August 10,
1998, and complainant filed his formal complaint on August 20, 1998.
Therein, complainant alleged that he was told during the 1997 RIF
that bridge inspection work would be performed by outside contractors,
but complainant then learned on August 10, 1998, that a white agency
employee received training to perform bridge inspections.
The record includes a letter dated August 20, 1998, noting that
complainant never received counseling for his complaint, and
instructing complainant to contact a counselor to discuss his complaint.
The Counselor's Report, dated September 18, 1998, lists complainant's
initial counselor contact as August 20, 1998. The report also notes that
at the time of the RIF, complainant believed that bridge inspection work
would be performed by outside contractors, but then claimed that he was
pushed-out to allow a white employee to perform the work when he learned
that the employee received training in bridge inspection after the RIF.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of
discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date of the
matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel
action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action.
The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed
to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45)
day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation
is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,
but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have
become apparent.
EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that he was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented
by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
Initially, the Commission notes that the agency improperly analyzed
complainant's claim. Complainant has not raised two separate issues,
but rather one issue regarding the RIF. Complainant alleged that he
had no reasonable suspicion of discrimination until he learned that
other employees were being trained to perform bridge inspection
work. The Commission agrees. Accordingly, complainant did not
have a reasonable suspicion of discrimination until August 10, 1998.
Accordingly, complainant's counselor contact on the same day he suspected
discrimination was timely.
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)) provides, in relevant part, that an
agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency
shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for
employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by
that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or
disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). 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. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April
22, 1994).
Complainant clearly has stated a claim alleging harm to a term, condition,
or privilege of employment -- he lost his job due to a RIF. As noted
above, the realization that other employees were being trained to perform
his old position is not a separate claim, but rather is how complainant
gained a reasonable suspicion of discrimination.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's dismissal is REVERSED, and the claim is REMANDED
for further investigation.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims as defined herein
in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified
and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall
acknowledge to the 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
fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant
requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a
final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and an
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 (K1199)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED
WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS
OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). All requests and arguments must be
submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the
absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed
timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604).
The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the
other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:
March 13, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.