01995528etal
02-02-2001
Dorothy Pleasant, Complainant, v. Mel R. Martinez, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.
Dorothy Pleasant v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
01995528, et al.
February 2, 2001
.
Dorothy Pleasant,
Complainant,
v.
Mel R. Martinez,
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01995528, et al.<1>
Agency No. 93-38, et al.
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant filed twelve appeals with the Commission from an agency
decision dated May 24, 1999, dismissing her complaints 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.;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<2> The
Commission accepts the appeals in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.405.
BACKGROUND
The agency issued a decision dismissing twelve complaints filed by
complainant for abuse of process. According to the agency, complainant
filed twenty-nine complaints between November 1, 1988 and February 19,
1999. The agency asserts it has issued decisions for sixteen of the
complaints, thirteen of which complainant has appealed to the Commission.
In the twelve cases addressed by the instant agency decision, the agency
concluded that the issues presented were frivolous, often overlapping or
presenting identical claims. Further, many of the claims were raised
through the union grievance process. Regarding the bases cited in the
complaints, the agency found complainant utilized a �shotgun� approach;
that complainant provided no rationale for believing she was discriminated
against based on her religion or disability that she often did not cite
comparatives, and those named were not similarly situated. With respect
to the identified responsible agency officials, the agency noted that
each complaint listed between six and thirty-two responsible individuals.
The agency further noted that if these complaints were processed �most,
if not all, of the [claims] would be dismissed for jurisdictional
reasons�. The agency concluded the complaints were �time consuming� and
�counter-productive.� Moreover, the agency determined that complainant
used the EEO process as a �substitute for inadequate or ineffective
labor relations....� and dismissed the complaints for abuse of process.
A background of the complaints addressed by the May 24, 1999 decision
is as follows:<3>
Appeal Number 01995528
In a formal complaint filed on July 31, 1993, complainant alleged she
was harassed when: (1) on June 9, 1993, management permitted a former
supervisor to file a frivolous complaint against her and allowed a former
supervisor to work numerous hours of overtime; (2) on April 29, 1993,
a former supervisor was permitted to give her a progress review even
though management knew she was not a supervisor; (3) a former supervisor
was given access to her personnel records from July 1992 to May 10,
1993; (4) on May 10, 1993, other employees were allowed to maintain
their GS-12 grades while complainant was denied a promotion to GS-12;
(5) on May 10, 1993, she was denied up-front workload adjustment while
other employees were granted such adjustments; (6) the Daily Approval
was computed by a former supervisor to restrain her request for block
time for official union responsibilities; and (7) on May 19, 1993,
management interfered with her receiving a new computer and monitor sent
to her from Headquarters.
Appeal Number 01995535
On July 3, 1995, complainant filed a formal complaint claiming she was
discriminated against when: (1) on April 6, 1995, she received an illegal
fitness for duty letter by the Acting State Coordinator/Director CPD,
which barred her from HUD until she obtained doctor's approval to resume
work; (2) she was publicly humiliated by the duty memo while others with
disabilities were not treated in such manner; (3) on April 5, 1995, she
was denied FECA and/or HUD forms to obtain a fitness for duty medical
report; and (4) on March 6, 1995, the agency failed to accommodate her
bad back when no assistance was provided to help her pack union property
for relocation.
Appeal Number 01995536
Complainant filed a complaint, dated May 30, 1996, claiming she suffered
discrimination when: (1) as of April 25, 1996, her Time and Attendance
(T&A) records were improperly processed and she was not permitted
to review, correct and certify the records on a bi-weekly basis.
Management has denied verification that her leave requests have been
approved prior to or after taking leave; (2) she was denied copies of
her T&A records under the Freedom of Information Act; (3) management
permitted a supervisor to ridicule complainant by referring to her as
a �voodoo queen� in front of co-workers; (4) on April 25, 1996, she
was denied a progress review rating; (5) on April 25, 1996, she was
given a questionable performance rating and her EPPES standards were
not conveyed to her; (6) on May 7, 1996, management allowed Person A to
certify that he had been her supervisor since August without providing
her with any documents to that effect, and that he falsified her T&A
records; (7) on May 7, 1996, Person A gave her a copy of her 1995 original
performance appraisal, which did not include her comments and the original
signatures of rating and reviewing officials; (8) on May 30, 1996 the
agency failed to provide EEO Counselors in the New Orleans office;
(9) On April 25, 1996, complainant was not permitted to participate
in the development of elements and standards assigned to her in 1995;
(10) on April 25, 1996, she was not provided with a workload adjustment
to allocate her 75% union time; (11) on April 25, 1996, she received
a memo stating that due to her T&A difficulties and other questionable
issues the Director would conduct her appraisal; (12) on May 7, 1995,
complainant's settlement agreements were violated when her job title
was abolished, while others were not changed; and (13) on May 16, 1996,
management tried to �flim flam� her out of her constitutional rights,
by denying her all evidence regarding her alleged T&A difficulties.
Appeal Number 01995537
On August 16, 1996, complainant filed a complaint regarding alleged
discriminatory acts by the agency including: (1) on June 28, 1996,
management refused to respond to her request for accommodation on HUD
Form 100, namely reassignment to another supervisor; (2) on June 11,
1996, management continued to refuse to promptly process her T&A records
and denied her notice of the status of her leave requests; (3) management
failed to provide her with appropriate notice concerning AWOL status, the
opportunity to review related material and to respond; (4) complainant was
continually denied local EEO counseling; (5) complainant was denied equal
pay for equal work based on her sex; (6) management refused to respond to
her October 13, 1995 request to work a fixed tour of duty without signing
in and out, and placed her on AWOL on June 3, 1996; (7) the agency denied
her health benefits; (8) the agency ignored her complaints and violated
her settlement agreements while providing a cash settlement for a white
male employee; (9) management allowed the Grievance Control Officer to
select Person H as management representative for grievances she filed,
to deny her official time and interfere with her union activities; (10)
the agency mailed correspondence to her instead of placing it under a
union office door, hand delivering it or placing it in a union mail box;
and (11) management failed to recognize her as a 100% union official.
Appeal Number 01995538
Complainant filed a complaint on January 14, 1997, regarding claims
of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, disability, and
reprisal. Her claims included: (1) the agency's New Orleans office doe
not have an adequate number of EEO Counselors; (2) she was denied access
to her T&A records; (3) since July 28, 1996, the agency has refused
to process her travel orders and vouchers for repayment of $5,000; (4)
on September 6, 1996, she was sent a memorandum instructing her not to
return to work until medically released, thereby preventing her from
preparing for an EEO hearing; (5) her Statement of Earnings and Leave
indicated 80 hours of verbal AWOL rather than continuation of pay due
to an on-the-job injury; (6) since October 13, 1995, March 6, 1996, and
July 22, 1996, management has denied her pay, health benefits, leave,
and job rights by placing her on AWOL; (7) she has been the victim of
disparate treatment regarding her prohibition from the office while
injured; and (8) complainant was treated disparately regarding verbal
AWOL while others do not perform duties and are reassigned.
Appeal Number 01995539
In a formal complaint filed on February 27, 1997, complainant claimed
she was discriminated against when: (1) the Director of Operations
Division demanded that a co-worker provide her home address; (2) on
August 20, 1996, the Director refused to sign her travel orders to
attend a Regional Labor Relations meeting; (3) the Director failed to
process her T&A records and denied her access; (4) the Director failed
to process her FECA claims; (5) as of August 1, 1996, complainant was
continually denied progress reviews; and (6) the agency failed to have
EEO Counselors available in the New Orleans office.<4>
Appeal Number 01995540
On April 22, 1997, complainant filed a formal complaint wherein
she claimed that: (1) she was refused reasonable accommodation and
subsequently barred from work; (2) the agency has not provided EEO
Counselors in the New Orleans office and has sabotaged her EEO complaints
by having them transmitted to different counselors; (3) she was denied
an EEO Counselor in reprisal for her EEO participation and objection to
having Person S as EEO Liaison; (4) Person H has continued a pattern
of sabotaging her complaints by combining two complaints into one;
(5) on September 4, 1996, she was sexually harassed when she was sent a
notice of proposed suspension, along with a false copy of T&A procedures;
(6) on October 3, 1996, she was suspended for five days; (7) management
conspired to put her on AWOL for three days; (8) management falsified
and sabotaged her FECA claims since August 1987, to deny her workers'
compensation and continuation of pay; (9) agency managers denied her
rights to a hearing by not responding to her requests; (10) she was
placed on AWOL while others were not required to report to work on
a fixed schedule and one employee was permitted to sleep on the job;
(11) management placed her on 688 hours AWOL for not signing in/out as
required; (12) she was denied unemployment compensation benefits because
she disqualified due to misconduct; (13) the Director has arbitrarily
increased her critical elements and workload while denying her input,
depriving her of progress reviews, giving her performance rating in
numbers instead of alphabetical rating, not provided her EPPES, rating
not based on her actual performance as a 100% union official, and stating
on the EPPES form that she did not receive her review because she was
AWOL; (14) on February 13, 1997, she was denied requested information
regarding AWOL; (15) standards for AWOL were inconsistently applied; (16)
management has refused to participate in arbitration of the disciplinary
actions taken against her; (17) she has been denied access to her T&A
records; (18) from June 28, 1996, her CA-7 form was falsified to deny
her workers' compensation; (19) another employee was AWOL but instead
charged with LWOP; (20) management permitted two agency employees to use
their positions to get house notes reduced; and (21) employee allowed
to abuse the drug eliminating program for MF Housing and Public Housing.
Appeal Number 01995541
In a complaint filed on January 26, 1998, complainant claimed the agency
discriminated against her when: (1) she was denied settlement of her
EEO complaints and on three occasions she made offers to the agency and
received no reply; (2) she was denied computer training in May 1997,
and her resubmitted requests on July 11, 1997, September 30, 1997 and
October 29, 1997 were not answered; (3) her T&A was uncorrected from
July 31, 1996 to November 5, 1996; (4) her requests on February 20,
1997, July 8, 1997, October 2, 1997, and November 6 - 7, 1997, for
reasonable accommodation (Laser Printer and Copier) were denied; and
(5) her request for reasonable accommodation (removal from particular
individual's supervision) was denied because the supervisory official
lied on the forms.
Appeal Number 01995542
On May 5, 1998, complainant filed an EEO complaint claiming she suffered
discrimination when: (1) on January 27, 1998, she was not timely provided
her 1997 annual performance rating; (2) on January 27, 1998; her personnel
records were not maintained in accordance with rules and regulations; and
her performance appraisal was left on a desk in full view; (3) on January
27, 1998, she did not get a performance planning meeting and 1998 critical
elements and standards were not drafted for her review and input; (4) on
January 28, 1998, she was suspended for five days while on 688 hours of
AWOL; (5) her complaints, including all those filed between 1995 and 1997,
have not been processed and investigated, and no effort has been made to
settle her complaints; (6) she received a �Fully Successful� rating while
less productive employees without EEO activity received higher ratings;
(7) on February 19, 1998, she was placed on 688 hours of AWOL because
she did not sign in/out; and (8) denied rights, pay, benefits and leave
as a result of denied accommodation and placement on AWOL.
Appeal Number 01995543
In a formal complaint filed on June 24, 1998, complainant claimed she was
discriminated against when: (1) the effective date of her within grade
was changed from March 1998 to June 1998; (2) her title was changed from
Housing Management Specialist to Public Housing Revitalization Specialist
to Financial Analyst, while she has no experience as a Financial Analyst;
(3) Since March 1998, the agency allows individual to falsely act as
supervisor and not sign in/out; (4) her position, title, series, IDP
and terms of EEO settlement were changed to Financial Analyst without
any training, guidance, PD, Critical Elements for 1998 or notice; (5)
her annual performance rating was delayed until May 8, 1998, thereby
preventing her from applying for the Community Builder positions which
closed on May 1, 1998; (6) the agency has refused to provide a copy
machine in the union office as a reasonable accommodation; (7) since May
13, 1998, Person T has disparately enforced the sign in/out requirements
but not disciplining one individual while she was suspended for five days;
(8) Person T has failed to take disciplinary action against supervisor's
falsification of her T&A records to keep her on AWOL and controvert
her injury claim; (9) Person T has failed to discipline a supervisor's
falsification of T&A by being absent without using leave and using agency
equipment for personal work; (10) the agency refused to settle her AWOL
arbitration while other employees received awards in settlement of their
AWOL charges; (11) since April 27, 1998, the agency has not complied with
a Department of Labor decision finding she is entitled to compensation
for lost wages from September 14, 1996 through October 31, 1996; and
(12) the agency permitted disparate discipline of her.
Appeal Number 01995544
On September 15, 1998, complainant filed a complaint claiming that :
(1) on June 23, 1998, the agency issued her an overdue 1997 performance
appraisal, while other employees received their appraisals in February
1998; (2) on July 2, 1998, she learned that Person W was placed into
a newly created GS-13 position on June 7, 1998, without advertisement
or merit staffing which prevented her from competing for the position;
(3) on July 6, 1998, the agency refused to process and investigate her
EEO complaints in a consistent or timely manner; (4) from June 19, 1998
through July 9, 1998, she was harassed by the agency's failure to provide
her a new computer; (5) on July 6, 1998, an agency attorney refused
to settle arbitration FMCS 97-00651-6; and (6) the above allegations
are a continuation of the violations of Chapter 751, Discipline, FPM
Letter 751-3, Offenses Related to Supervisory/Managerial Observance of
Employee Rights.
Appeal Number 01995545
Complaint filed a formal complaint on February 19, 1999, wherein
complainant claimed: (1) the agency failed to investigate the complaints
she has filed since 1995; (2) Person D gave false information to her
congressperson; (3) the agency failed to adjust her leave and the
effective date of her 1998 within-grade, which adversely impacted her
time and attendance leave records, pay and benefits; and (4) two EEO
contract investigators denied her the chance to file a Rebuttal Affidavit
for case FW 97-28.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This Commission has the inherent power to control and prevent abuse
of its orders and processes and procedures. See Buren v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05850299 (Nov. 18, 1985). The procedures
contained in Commission regulations provide the process by which claims
of discrimination are processed in the Federal sector, with a goal
of eliminating or preventing unlawful employment discrimination. The
procedures set forth should not be misconstrued as substitutes for either
inadequate or ineffective labor-management relations or an alternative
or substitute for labor-management disputes. Sessoms v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973440 (June 11, 1998).
EEOC Regulations provide for dismissal of complaints that are part
of a "clear pattern of misuse of the EEO process for a purpose other
than the prevention and elimination of employment discrimination.�
29 C.F.R. � 107(a)(9). The criteria required to justify dismissal for
abuse of process, as set forth in Commission decisions, must be applied
strictly. Id. These criteria require:
(i) Evidence of multiple complaint filings; and
(ii) Claims that are similar or identical, lack specificity or involve
matters previously resolved; or
(iii) Evidence of circumventing other administrative processes,
retaliating against the agency's in-house administrative processes or
overburdening the EEO complaint system.
On rare occasions, the Commission has applied abuse of process standards
to particular complaints. The circumstances where such standards are
applicable must be rare, due to the strong policy in favor of preserving a
complainant's EEO rights whenever possible. EEO Management Directive 110
(MD-l10), 5- 17 (November 9, 1999) (citing Love v. Pullman, 404 U.S. 522
(1972); Wrenn v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal
No. 01932105(Aug. 19, 1993)).
In the instant case, the agency dismissed the twelve complaints in
their entirety for abuse of process, finding that complainant �clearly
misused the EEO process for ends other than which it was designed to
accomplish.� As noted above, the agency concluded that complainant used
her EEO complaints as an alternative method for resolving labor disputes.
The agency noted in its decision that over an eleven-year period,
complainant filed twenty-nine complaints and the agency issued sixteen
decisions. The agency also noted that each complaint cites between
six and thirty-two different responsible officials. Numerosity alone,
however, is insufficient for a finding of abuse of process. Moreover, we
do not find the amount of case filed by complainant to be extraordinary.
See Kessinger v. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0197639
(June 8, 1999)(over 160 complaints and 150 appeals); see also Donnelly
v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 01972171 (Commission reversed
dismissal of sixteen complaints for abuse of process).
While acknowledging that the total number of complaints is not as
great as other cases before the Commission, the agency stated that
�the nature of her complaints shows abuse of process.� The agency
found that the complaints raised �frivolous issues citing similar
or identical allegations.� A review of the record reflects that
most of the claims raise substantive issues pertaining to the terms,
conditions, or privileges of her employment. For example, complainant
claimed discrimination relating to attendance, discipline, reasonable
accommodation, and performance evaluations.
The agency also contends that complainant has raised many of the claims
through the union grievance process and through Fair Labor Practices
complaints. Regardless, the Commission does not find that the record
shows a clear intent by complaint to utilize the EEO process for ends
other than that which it was designed to accomplish.
Finally, we note the agency's assertion that if the complaints were
processed �most, if not all ... would be dismissed for jurisdictional
reasons.� Throughout the record, the agency implies or suggests
the possibility of alternative grounds for the dismissal of several
claims. For example, the agency noted that some claims were purportedly
raised in a grievance or are pending before the agency. The Commission
determines, however, that the agency chose not to dismiss specific claims
for specific procedural deficiencies, such as raising the same matter in
prior complaints or through the negotiated grievance procedure; or raising
matters addressing the processing of prior complaints. Instead the agency
expressly dismissed all twelve complaints solely on the grounds of abuse
of process. According to the agency, to address each complaint would be
�counter-productive.� We disagree and find that record does not support
a finding of abuse of process.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically discussed herein, the agency's decision to
dismiss the complaints was improper and is REVERSED. The complaints
are REMANDED to the agency for further processing in accordance with
this decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The agency is ordered to take the following actions:
Consolidate the twelve complaints addressed herein for further processing
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.606;
Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency shall acknowledge to complainant that it has received
the remanded complaints and consolidated them for further processing in
accordance with provision (1) above; and
Process the remanded complaints in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108.
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 and consolidation to
complainant and a 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 (K0900)
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 (M0900)
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 (R0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
February 2, 2001
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1This decision addresses appeal numbers: 01995528, 01995535, 01995536,
01995537, 01995538, 01995539, 01995540, 01995541, 01995542, 01995543,
01995544, and 01995545. The corresponding agency numbers are: 93-38,
95-40, 96-41, 96-44, 97-19, 97-28, 97-35, 98-06, 98-13, 98-17, 98-29,
99-06.
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.
3While, for clarification, numbers are assigned to the various claims
presented in the complaints, we note that they may not correspond to
the numbers used by the agency and complainant.
4An agency document contained in the record notes the acceptance of claim
2, while noting that the remaining claims were not accepted �because
previously raised in other complaints� or �no evidence of harm.�