01a42911
07-29-2005
Alec J. Kuracina, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Alec J. Kuracina v. United States Postal Service
01A42911
July 29, 2005
.
Alec J. Kuracina,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A42911
Agency Nos. 1F-931-1011-95, et al.
Hearing Nos. 340-1998-03392X, et al.
DECISION
On April 25, 1995, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint (Agency
No. 1F-931-1011-95) wherein he claimed that he was discriminated against
on the bases of his color (white), sex (male), national origin (Slovak),
age (43), disability (perceived) and in reprisal for his previous EEO
activity under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
Rehabilitation Act when he was denied a reasonable accommodation; issued
a Notice of Removal effective March 31, 1995, and he was not afforded a
second opinion of his fitness for duty examination. The record indicates
that four other complaints were filed and were consolidated with Agency
No. 1F-931-1011-95. Subsequent to an investigation, complainant requested
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). At a pre-hearing
conference, complainant stated that the only unresolved issue in this
matter was whether he was subjected to reprisal when he was terminated
by the agency in March 1995.
On or about September 20, 2000, complainant filed a civil action wherein
he claimed discrimination as to his 1994 fitness for duty exam and
the finding that he was unfit for duty. On March 4, 2002, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California granted
the agency's Motion for Summary Judgment. The United States District
Court ruled that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
reprisal because a requirement to undergo psychological testing is not
an adverse employment action. The United States District Court further
stated that even if complainant had established a prima facie case,
his numerous grievances were unreasonably disruptive in the workplace
and provided a legitimate reason to send him for a fitness for duty
examination as well as take disciplinary action against complainant.
On January 22, 2004, the AJ dismissed the termination claim pursuant
to the collateral estoppel doctrine. The AJ noted that complainant's
termination was caused by the alleged unreasonably disruptive behavior
that led to his fitness for duty examination. The AJ reasoned that
complainant had the opportunity to address his termination in the civil
action and therefore the collateral estoppel doctrine is applicable.
By final action dated February 19, 2004, the agency adopted the AJ's
decision and dismissed the instant complaints.
The Commission has previously held that the doctrine of collateral
estoppel is applicable to discrimination claims. See Fitz-Gerald
v. Tennessee Valley Authority, EEOC Request No. 05910573 (January
16, 1992). Furthermore, in Magnallenes v. Department of Justice, EEOC
Request No. 05900176 (July 13, 1990), the Commission noted, �collateral
estoppel or issue preclusion recognizes that suits addressed to particular
claims may present issues relevant to suits on other claims. Thus,
issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues actually adjudicated and
necessary to the judgment in a prior litigation between the parties.� In
the civil action complainant alleged that he was terminated as a result
of the fitness for duty examination. In the civil action complainant
requested reinstatement with the agency. The Commission finds that
adjudication of the fitness for duty examination claim, which was
adjudicated in the civil action, was necessary to a determination of the
termination issue. Therefore, we find that complainant is collaterally
estopped from raising the fitness for duty examination issue in the
instant complaint and also the inextricably intertwined issue of the
termination.
The agency's dismissal of the instant matter is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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), 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 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 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 (S0900)
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 (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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 29, 2005
__________________
Date