Barbara S. Minnich, Complainant, George J. Tenent, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 6, 2000
01984475 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 6, 2000)

01984475

07-06-2000

Barbara S. Minnich, Complainant, George J. Tenent, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Agency.


Barbara S. Minnich v. Central Intelligence Agency

01984475

July 6, 2000

Barbara S. Minnich, )

Complainant, )

)

)

) Appeal No. 01984475

George J. Tenent, ) Agency No. 94-45

Director, )

Central Intelligence Agency, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

On May 14, 1998, the complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (Commission) from a final decision of the agency

dated April 14, 1998 concerning her 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., �501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. The

appeal is timely (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)), and it is accepted under 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the agency properly dismissed the complainant's complaint for

failure to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

In June 1993, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final

decision stating it was dismissing the complainant's disability retirement

application on the grounds that it was untimely filed. It reasoned that

the complainant was separated on July 29, 1989, and OPM did not receive

her application until August 23, 1991, beyond the one year time limit

under 5 U.S.C. �8337(b) to file an application. Title 5 U.S.C. �8337(b)

concerns disability retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System

(CSRS). OPM rejected the complainant's contention that she was actually

separated in August 1990.

Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal with the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB). In its initial decision of October 1993,

the MSPB stated that the complainant was employed under the CSRS.

It noted that while some of the complainant's retirement forms were

stamped "FERS," as though she was employed under the Federal Employee

Retirement System (FERS), the complainant remained eligible to receive

a disability retirement under CSRS because she worked for the agency

from 1963 to 1969, prior to being rehired in 1984. The initial decision

affirmed OPM's decision. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition

with the MSPB to review its initial decision. The MSPB rejected the

petition on the grounds that it was untimely filed.

Meanwhile, in June 1994 the complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging

that the agency discriminated against her on the bases of race, sex,

age, disability and reprisal for EEO activity when it refused to complete

disability retirement application forms she provided the agency in March

1994 and file and/or return them to her. She wished to apply for a FERS

disability retirement with OPM.

The record contains a May 1997 affidavit by the agency's Chief of the

Services and Benefits Group which indicates that while the complainant

was previously in CSRS, she transferred to FERS in 1987, apparently via

a voluntary election window.

The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

It reasoned that the complainant complaint constituted an improper

collateral attack on OPM's decision of untimeliness, and was another

attempt to apply for disability retirement. The agency stated that while

the complainant used CSRS forms in applying for disability retirement in

1991, she was covered by FERS when she was separated. Further, citing

CSRS and FERS statutory provisions, the agency stated that the one year

time limit for filing a disability retirement application under CSRS

and FERS was the same.<2>

On appeal, the complainant states that the agency sent her forms

appropriate to CSRS, not FERS, and OPM did not receive proper records

from the agency that she was under FERS. She states that when she made

her request to the agency in March 1994, her case was still pending

before the MSPB, and there was time to correct the record. She argues

that the agency should have cooperated by correcting the error, filing

the disability retirement forms, and leaving the matter in the hands of

the correct judicial body to make a determination.

In response to the complainant's appeal, the agency states that under

regulations, an agency may only file disability retirement forms on

behalf of an employee under limited circumstances, and it is normally

up to the employee to file the forms. As it existed in 1994, OPM FERS

regulation 5 C.F.R. �844.201(a)(1) provided that after an employee

separated from service, the employee must file a disability retirement

application with OPM, and if the former employee filed with the agency

rather than OPM, the filing deadline would only be met if OPM received

the application from the agency within one year after the separation.

55 FR 6598 (February 26, 1990). 5 C.F.R. 844.202 provided that an

agency must file a disability retirement application for an employee

only under limited circumstances which generally related to the employee

being institutionalized or the agency concluding that the employee was

incapable of making a decision to file, and other related factors.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A collateral attack involves a challenge to another forum's proceeding,

i.e., the EEO process in a separate case, the unemployment compensation

process, the workers' compensation process, and so on. Such attacks

are allowed only in limited circumstances. Lau v. National Credit Union

Administration, EEOC Request No. 05950037 (March 18, 1996). Hence, where

a complainant files a discrimination complaint alleging discrimination

because an agency submitted paperwork with false information to the Office

of Workers' Compensation (OWCP) regarding the complainant's workers'

compensation claim, this constitutes an impermissible collateral attack

on the OWCP proceeding. The Commission has recognized that an agency

has the right to represent its position and interest in the OWCP forum,

and will not review decisions which would require it to judge the merits

of the workers' compensation claim. Pizozzi v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Request No. 05970146 (October 30, 1996).

While the Commission has held that the proper forum for contesting the

outcome of a workers' compensation claim is with OWCP, the Commission

has accepted jurisdiction for allegations that the agency delayed

processing a workers' compensation claim by failing to submit a form

because of discriminatory animus. Foster v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC

Request No. 05950693 (May 16, 1996). The instant case, however, is

distinct. In Foster, it was the agency's duty to file the form with OWCP.

In the instant case, the complainant had the responsibility to file the

application, and could do so directly with OPM. Given this, the agency's

refusal in 1994 to complete the disability retirement form for the stated

reason that it believed the complainant was improperly attempting to

re-file her disability retirement claim constituted opposition activity

covered by Pizozzi, supra. Accordingly, the complainant's complaint

fails to state a claim. Her claim lies with OPM, which has the power to

determine whether it should process her second application for disability

retirement, not in the EEO forum.

CONCLUSION

Based upon a review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons, it is

the decision of the Commission to AFFIRM the final decision of the agency

which found that the complainant's complaint fails to state a claim.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

July 6, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.

2The agency previously dismissed the complainant's complaint for failure

to state a claim. The Commission vacated the agency's dismissal and

ordered a supplemental investigation. Minnich v. Central Intelligence

Agency, EEOC Request No. 05950414 (Februry 14, 1997). Much of the

factual information recited in the body of this decision regarding the

complainant's CSRS and FERS disability retirement applications were

produced during the supplemental investigation.