Claimants, )

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 12, 2000
01986964 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 12, 2000)

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.