0120073694
12-22-2011
Yuri J. Stoyanov, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Yuri J. Stoyanov,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120073694
Hearing No. 531-2007-00135X
Agency No. 06-00167-01637
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the September 21,
2007 final Agency decision finding no discrimination with regard to his
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was a
Scientist, ND-1310-04 ,at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Carderock,
Maryland. In his complaint, Complainant alleged that he was subjected to
discrimination on the bases of national origin (Russian), age (over 50),
and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity arising under Title VII
and the ADEA when he was not selected for any of the following positions:
(1) Program Manager - Vacancy Announcement NE6-ND-XXXX-05-4G345499-I
(May 15, 2006);
(2) Program Manager - Vacancy Announcement NE6-NDXXXX-05-4G345421-I
(May 12, 2006);
(3) Lead Engineer - Vacancy Announcement NE6-ND-XXXX-05-4G345475-C-IN-58
(April 2006);
(4) Engineer, Vacancy Announcement NE6-ND0855-05-4G349e01-C-MP 36
(April 2006);
(5) Program Manager, Vacancy Announcement NE6-NDXXXX-06-4G338031-C-MP
and NE6-NDXXXX-05-4G338033-C-MP (May 2006);
(6) Program Manager, Vacancy Announcement NE6-NDXXXX-05-4G345127-C
(No selection); and
(7) Program Manager, Vacancy Announcement NE6-NDXXXX-05-4G345477-C-MP-60
(May 2006).
The Agency issued a partial dismissal dismissing three other claims
in Complainant’s complaint under various parts of 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.107(a). Following an investigation, Complainant had requested
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). However, the
AJ dismissed Complainant’s hearing request as a sanction for his
inappropriate conduct in the hearings process, including deliberately
disobeying the orders of the AJ which were designed to protect
Agency Counsel from abuse, and interfering with the proper conduct of
the proceedings. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for a
decision on the record. The Agency found that Complainant had not been
discriminated against as alleged.
FINDINGS
Upon review, the Commission finds that on July 25, 2007, Complainant
filed a civil action (identified as Civil Action No. RDB 07 CV-1985)
(“Civil Action”) in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland. The record discloses that the claims raised therein are so
broad as to include the claims in this complaint. The complaint alleges,
in addition to a long series of discrete discriminatory events, that
Complainant was subjected to a “continuous pattern of discrimination”
by a supervisor (Civil Action complaint ¶ 166) “in conspiracy with
subordinates” (Id ¶ 52), regarding failure to promote (Id ¶ 55).
The regulation found at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409 provides that the filing of
a civil action “shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal.”
Commission regulations mandate dismissal of the EEO complaint under these
circumstances so as to prevent a Complainant from simultaneously pursuing
both administrative and judicial remedies on the same matters, wasting
resources, and creating the potential for inconsistent or conflicting
decisions, and in order to grant due deference to the authority of the
federal district court. See Stromgren v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05891079 (May 7, 1990); Sandy v. Dep’t of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 01893513 (Oct. 19, 1989); Kotwitz v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Request No. 05880114 (Oct. 25, 1988).
We have previously dismissed appeals by Complainant after finding
that his civil court filings were so broad as to include any EEO claims
pending in the administrative process at the time of his filing. See Yuri
Stoyanov v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120061303, 0120062900,
0120063442, 0120064410 (April 26, 2007).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Complainant’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States
District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you
receive this decision. 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a
civil action, 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
December 22, 2011
Date
2
0120073694
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120073694