01a00525
04-24-2000
Dominic Gallo, Complainant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Dominic Gallo, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A00525
) Agency No. 6996094
Rodney E. Slater, )
Secretary, )
Department of Transportation, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On October 18, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this
Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) issued on September 14,
1999, pertaining to his 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.<1> Pursuant to 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405),
the Commission accepts the complainant's appeal from the agency's final
decision in the above-entitled matter.
The record reflects, that for the relevant period of time, complainant
was employed by the Department of Transportation as an Aviation Safety
Inspector, FG-1825-113. On June 12, 1999, complainant initiated contact
with an EEO Counselor. During the counseling period, complainant stated
that he had been subjected to discrimination when:
Complainant was denied the opportunity to submit a bid for a job he
was interested in; and
A temporary job complainant was interested in was not announced and
complainant learned that it was filled by another employee.
Counseling failed, and on July 28, 1999, complainant filed a formal
complaint claiming that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination on
the bases of his national origin (Italian American), age (forty and over)
and reprisal for actions taken on Sun Pacific International Airlines. The
formal complaint was comprised of the following claims of discrimination:
Complainant was denied the opportunity to submit a bid for a job he
was interested in;
A temporary job complainant was interested in was not announced and
complainant learned that it was filled by another employee; and
Complainant's position description was cut in half and given to a younger
employee to prevent complainant from attaining a FG-14 level position.
On September 14, 1999, the agency issued a final decision dismissing the
present complaint. Specifically, with regards to claim one, the agency
dismissed this claim because complainant previously raised this issue
before a negotiated grievance procedure. With respect to claim two,
the agency found that this allegation failed to state a claim because
complainant was not considered to be an aggrieved employee. And finally,
the agency dismissed claim three, because complainant failed to raise
this allegation before an EEO Counselor.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
With regards to claim one, volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(4))
provides that an agency may dismiss a complaint where the complainant
has raised the matter in a negotiated grievance procedure that permits
claims of discrimination. In the instant case, the record clearly shows
that complainant filed a grievance concerning the matter identified in
claim one. However, the record does not contain any information as to
whether, under the negotiated agreement, the complainant is able to
raise a claim of discrimination within his grievance. Furthermore,
complainant's grievance, does not make mention that his claim is based
on discrimination. Therefore, it is impossible for the Commission to
determine whether complainant had the right to raise the matter before
the grievance procedure but failed to do so, or if by agreement, he was
precluded from raising the matter of discrimination before the grievance
procedure. Thus, the agency has failed to substantiate the bases for its
final decision. See Marshall v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request
No. 05910685 (September 6, 1991). Accordingly, The Commission finds
that the agency improperly dismissed claim one pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(4). Therefore, the Commission hereby REVERSES the agency
decision dismissing claim one. Accordingly, this claim is REMANDED to
the agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and
applicable regulations.
With respect to claim two, volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter cited as 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, the Commission finds that claim two was properly dismissed
pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and
hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)).
Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases
of his national origin (Italian American), age (forty and over) and
reprisal for actions taken on Sun Pacific International Airlines when,
a temporary position complainant was interested in, was not announced,
and complainant later learned that the position was filled.
On appeal, no persuasive arguments or evidence have been presented
regarding whether complainant has stated a claim, i.e., to show that
complainant was injured by the incident raised. Accordingly, the agency's
final decision dismissing claim two is AFFIRMED.
Next, the agency dismissed claim three for failure to raise this issue
before the EEO Counselor. Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2)) states,
in pertinent part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint which raises
a matter that has not been brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor,
and is not like or related to a matter on which the complainant has
received counseling. A later claim or complaint is "like or related"
to the original complaint if the later claim or complaint adds to
or clarifies the original complaint and could have reasonably been
expected to grow out of the original complaint during the investigation.
See Scher v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940702
(May 30, 1995); Calhoun v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05891068 (March 8, 1990). In this case, claim three was not raised
before an EEO Counselor and it does not add to or clarify the original
complaint, and it cannot be reasonably expected to grow out of the
original complaint during the investigation. Therefore, the agency's
decision to dismiss this claim is AFFIRMED.
As a final matter, the agency, in their final decision, dismissed
complainant's basis of reprisal because he did not engage in a protected
activity. With regards to the basis of reprisal, the Commission has
stated that:
The anti-reprisal provision of Title VII protects those who participate
in the EEO process and also those who oppose discriminatory employment
practices. Participation occurs when an employee has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding or hearing. Participation also occurs when an employee files
a labor grievance, if the employee raised issues of unlawful employment
discrimination in the grievance. . . . A variety of activities has been
found to constitute opposition . . . . Because the enforcement of Title
VII depends on the willingness of employees to oppose unlawful employment
practices or policies, courts have interpreted section 704(a) of Title
VII as intending to provide �exceptionally broad protection to those who
oppose such practices'. . . ." Whipple v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05910784 (February 21, 1992) (citations omitted).
Finally, we note that Title VII protects a person "where the employee
has a reasonable, good faith belief that the challenged employment
practice violates Title VII, even if the belief is later found to be
mistaken. . . . The mistaken belief may be one of law or of fact."
Whipple, supra, quoting Wolf v. J.I. Case Co., 617 F. Supp. 858, 868
(E.D. Wis. 1985). According to the record, there is no evidence
that complainant opposed any unlawful employment practice, let
alone participation in the EEO process or a grievance process where
discrimination has been raised. Accordingly, the agency decision to
dismiss the basis of reprisal is AFFIRMED.
ORDER (E1199)
The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claim in accordance with
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall acknowledge to
the complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty
(30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency
shall issue to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall
notify complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty
(150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the
matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant
requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue
a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's
request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and an
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).
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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION
(R1199)
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:
April 24, 2000
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 complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date Equal Employment Assistant1On 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.