01986964
07-12-2000
Claimants, )
Iris Bravo, Armida Bravo v. Department of Agriculture
01986964
July 12, 2000
Iris Bravo, )
Armida Bravo, )
Claimants, )
) Appeal Nos. 01986964
v. ) 01987003
) Agency No. 870807
Daniel Glickman, )
Secretary, )
Department of Agriculture, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Claimants initiated appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(the Commission) from final decisions of the agency concerning their
claims for relief as class members of the class certified in Byrd
v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Hearing No. 250-90-8171X, according to
the terms of an October 10, 1993 settlement agreement between the class
representative and the agency.<1> The Commission finds the appeals
timely (see 29 C.F.R. �1614.402)a)), and accepts them in accordance
with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405).<2>
On July 7, 1997, the Commission issued a decision in Mitchell, et
al. v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01960816, et al.
In that decision, the Commission briefly noted the history of the Byrd
litigation and more fully discussed the settlement agreement between the
class and the agency that resolved the liability portion of the matter.
The decision further addressed in detail the burdens of proof applicable
in the remedy phase of a class action where the parties incorporated
Commission regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.204(l)(3) into their settlement
agreement. The Commission finds that the decision in Mitchell is
applicable to this case and we incorporate by reference that decision
herein.
The settlement agreement required the Office of Personnel Management,
which was a party to the underlying Byrd action, to revise the individual
qualification standard applicable to positions in the Agriculture
Management Series, GS-475. Prior to the revisions, candidates for
GS-475 positions had to meet strict educational requirements. Under the
revised qualification standard, a candidate may qualify by meeting
an educational requirement, by meeting an experience requirement, or
through a combination of education and experience. The qualification
standard sets forth the general and specific experience requirements
candidates for GS-475 positions must possess. It also lists the courses
a candidate must have taken in order to meet the educational requirement
for consideration for a GS-475 position.
Iris Bravo, EEOC Appeal No. 01986964
Claimant began working for the agency as a Clerk Typist, GS-322-3,
in January 1987. She became a Community Program Assistant, GS-1101-5,
in October 1995. Claimant completed various agency training courses.
Claimant stated that she qualified for a GS-475 position in January 1990,
based upon her experience. Claimant listed 33 positions, including 14
GS-11/12 County Supervisor and Farmer Program Specialist, and 2 GS-12/13
District Director positions, for which she would have applied.
In its final decision, the agency found that claimant did not meet the
new GS-475 qualification standard during the complaint period which ended
August 7, 1994. Specifically, the agency stated that claimant's clerical
positions were not sufficient to meet the general experience requirement,
and that her agency training did not meet the education requirement.
The Commission agrees with the agency that claimant was not qualified for
the GS-475 positions she identified in her claim. Claimant worked for
the agency in a clerical position until October 1995. Thus, she did not
have the requisite general experience for a GS-475 position until after
that time. Although claimant asserted, generally, that she counseled
and advised farmers, she offered no specific information regarding the
functions she performed or the length of time during which she did so.
Therefore, we find that the agency properly denied claimant's claim.
Armida Bravo, EEOC Appeal No. 01987003
Claimant worked for the agency as a County Office Clerk, GS-322, from July
1980 until March 1981, at which time she was promoted to the position of
County Office Assistant. Claimant then became a District Office Clerk
in October 1982, a position she held until becoming a Loan Assistant,
GS-1165, in December 1988. Claimant was promoted to a Loan Specialist,
GS-1165-9, in March 1991. Prior to coming to the agency, claimant
worked as a Clerk Typist, and completed two years of undergraduate study
in Business Administration. Claimant stated that she qualified for
GS-475 positions beginning in October 1986, based upon her experience.
Claimant listed nine positions, including four GS-11/12 County Supervisor
positions, for which she would have applied.
In its final decision, the agency found that claimant lacked the
qualifying experience for seven of the GS-475 positions cited in her
claim. The agency acknowledged that claimant met the general experience
requirement for GS-475 positions in December 1991, that is, three years
after she began working as a Loan Assistant. The agency noted, however,
that all of the GS-475-5/7 level positions cited were filled prior to
that time, and that claimant lacked the specialized experience for the
GS-475-11/12 positions. In addition, the agency noted that two of the
positions cited were actually filled in 1995, that is, after the claim
period.
The Commission agrees with the agency that claimant was not qualified
for the GS-475 positions identified which were filled during the claim
period. Specifically, claimant did not meet the general experience
requirement until after the GS-475-5/7/9 positions cited were filled.
Further, claimant was not qualified for the GS-11/12 County Supervisor
positions cited in her claim, as she did not show that she had one year
of specialized experience at the GS-9 level prior to the positions being
filled. While claimant indicated that she was involved in processing
loans from 1980 through 1982, claimant did not provide any specific
information regarding the duties she performed. Thus, we find that the
agency properly denied claimant's claim.
CONCLUSION
The agency's decisions to dismiss the claims for relief identified in
EEOC Appeal Nos. 01986964 and 01987003 are hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the claimant 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).
CLAIMANTS' 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:
___07-12-00______ __________________________________
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 claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________ __________________________
Date
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 failed to submit postal return receipts or other evidence
that would show when claimants received the final agency decisions;
accordingly, the appeals are deemed to be timely.