01a15390
12-09-2002
Curnis King, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Curnis King v. Department of Transportation
01A15390
12/9/02
.
Curnis King,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A15390
Agency No. 2012017
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
decision dated August 22, 2001, dismissing his complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. In his complaint, complainant alleged that he
was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (African American)
age (D.O.B. 8/10/22) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
by letter dated February 25, 1999, the agency requested that the Finance
Division review his travel vouchers before issuing payment causing delay
in receipt of his refunds; and
he was required to submit copies of receipts of his travel expenses while
[on detail] in Washington, D.C.<1>
The agency dismissed the claims for stating the same claims as in prior
complaints.
A review of the record does not reveal a copy of complainant's prior
complaints. However, we find that the agency could have properly
dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim. 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).
Upon review, we find that complainant failed to articulate how the above
allegations harmed him with respect to a term, condition, or privilege
of employment. For that reason, the agency's final decision 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
12/9/02
Date
1Complainant also alleged discrimination when: (1) on or about September
8, 1999, and September 19, 1999, and he was informed that fully
authorized payments were denied on two approved travel assignments;
(2) he was denied the opportunity to carry over unused leave in order
to complete his special assignment in Washington, D.C.; and (3) he
was forced to retire on December 31, 1999. Complainant appealed these
three claims to the Merit Systems Board (MSPB). On November 1, 2001,
the MSPB issued a decision affirming the agency's actions.