01996375
10-13-2000
Carolyn Logan-King, Complainant, v. Ida L. Castro, Chairwoman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Agency.
Carolyn Logan-King v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
01996375
October 13, 2000
.
Carolyn Logan-King,
Complainant,
v.
Ida L. Castro,
Chairwoman,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01996375
Agency No. 09800069-RI
DECISION
On August 14, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission<1> from a final agency decision pertaining to her complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.<2>
The Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.405.
The Commission determines that complainant's complaint was improperly
dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
In a formal complaint filed on September 2, 1998, complainant alleged
that she had been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination when
her request for reasonable accommodation was denied.
On July 13, 1999, the agency issued a final decision, dismissing the
complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the agency
found that complainant failed to show that her identified disability
(multiple injuries to the left side of her body; MCL sprain (left knee);
and left elbow injury) constituted a disability entitled to protection
under the Rehabilitation Act. The agency noted that while complainant
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge on March 31, 1999,
the evidence did not warrant a hearing.
The regulation set forth at 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 21, 1994).
The only proper questions in determining whether a claim is within the
purview of the EEO process are (1) whether the complainant is an aggrieved
employee and (2) whether she has claimed employment discrimination
covered by the EEO statutes. An employee is "aggrieved" if she has
suffered direct and personal deprivation at the hands of the employer.
See Hobson v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05891133 (March
2, 1990). Here, complainant claims that she was denied a reasonable
accommodation. Complainant's claim is sufficient to render her an
aggrieved employee. Because complainant claimed that the adverse action
was based on disability, she has raised a claim within the purview of
the EEOC regulations.
The Commission finds that the agency improperly addressed the merits
of complainant's complaint. The agency's articulated reason for the
action in dispute, i.e., that complainant's injury did not substantially
limit one or more of her major life activities, goes to the merits of
complainant's complaint, and is irrelevant to the procedural issue of
whether she has stated a justiciable claim under the Rehabilitation Act.
See Osborne v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05960111
(July 19, 1996); Lee v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05930220 (August 12, 1993); Ferrazzoli v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05910642 (August 15, 1991).
Concerning the agency's denial of complainant's hearing request, we
note that the Commission's regulations provide that a complainant is
entitled, upon request, to a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.108, 1614.109. The evidence of record in this
case reflects that complainant timely requested, and was denied, such
a hearing. Accordingly, because complainant's request for hearing
was denied and because the agency improperly dismissed the complaint
for failure to state a claim, it is the decision of the Commission to
REVERSE the final agency decision, and to REMAND the case for a hearing
before an Administrative Judge.
ORDER
The complaint is remanded to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC
field office for scheduling of a hearing in an expeditious manner.
The agency is directed to submit a copy of the complaint file to the
EEOC Hearings Unit within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this
decision becomes final. The agency shall provide written notification
to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below that the
complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter,
the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the complaint in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the agency shall issue a final
action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0800)
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 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 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0800)
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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)
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:
______________________________
Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
October 13, 2000
__________________
Date
1In the instant matter, the EEOC is both the respondent and the
adjudicatory authority. The Commission's adjudicatory function is
separate and independent from those offices charged with the in-house
processing and resolution of discrimination complaints. For purposes of
this decision, the term �Commission � or EEOC will be used when referring
to the adjudicatory authority and the term �agency� will be used when
referring to the respondent party in this action. The Chairwoman has
recused herself from participation in this decision.
2On 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.