Gerald Williams, Complainant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 13, 2000
01a01983 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 13, 2000)

01a01983

07-13-2000

Gerald Williams, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Gerald Williams, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A01983

F. Whitten Peters, ) Agency No. 9V1M00008

Secretary, )

Department of the Air Force, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an

agency decision dated December 7, 1999, dismissing his complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> In his

complaint, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination

on the basis of physical disability (unspecified).<2>

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation

set forth at 64 Fed Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and

hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)), for failure

to state a claim. The agency stated that complainant did not allege a

personal loss or harm to a term, condition, or privilege of employment

as a result of an agency action. Specifically, the agency claimed

that complainant failed to identify a concrete act alleged to be

discriminatory. The agency noted that in an April 27, 1999 letter,

complainant identified his complaint as a contractual issue regarding

a determination concerning complainant's tax liability for disability

benefits. The agency stated that complainant has not been employed

with the agency since May 1989, and noted that complainant has not

raised other charges concerning agency officials. The agency further

stated that complaints regarding complainant's status with the Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) or the Department of Labor (DOL) on a workers'

compensation claim are not within the jurisdiction of the EEO process.

In addition, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to

the regulation set forth at 64 Fed Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be

codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2)),

on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. The agency stated

that complainant resigned from the agency on May 12, 1989, and failed

to identify any acts of alleged discrimination that occurred within

forty-five (45) days of the date of contact with the EEO Counselor.

Finally, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the

regulation set forth at 64 Fed Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified

and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(7)), for failure

to cooperate. Specifically, the agency stated that complainant received

a final interview letter on October 15, 1999, which informed him of his

right to file a formal complainant and served as a proposal to dismiss

his complaint for failure to cooperate. The letter requested that

complainant provide relevant information concerning the specific acts

believed to be discriminatory and the basis for complainant's belief.

When complainant failed to provide the requested information, the agency

dismissed his complaint for failure to cooperate.

The regulation set forth at 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).

In the present case, we find that the agency properly dismissed

complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim. Complainant's

formal complaint and other correspondence with the agency indicate that

he is challenging the Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP)

denial of Continuation of Pay (COP). Complainant's challenge of an OWCP

decision is not within the Commission's jurisdiction. The record reveals

that complainant has sent various correspondence to different agency and

government officials over a period of approximately nine years containing

allegations of obstruction of justice, Privacy Act violations, cruel

and unusual punishment, and Civil Rights Act violations. The Commission

finds that complainant's complaint is too vague to state a claim under

the EEOC regulations. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106(c) provides

that a complaint must contain a statement that is sufficiently precise

to describe generally the actions(s) or practice(s) that form the basis

of the complaint. After reviewing the record in the present case, we

find that complainant failed to present a specific claim of employment

discrimination covered by EEOC regulations. Consequently, we find that

complainant's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss complainant's complaint

for failure to state a claim was proper and is AFFIRMED.

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).

COMPLAINANTS' 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:

July 13, 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 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 record reveals that complainant sent a letter to the agency

postmarked October 27, 1999, in which he attempted to �appeal the

agency decision� in his case. The agency responded to this letter

by informing complainant that no formal complaint was ever filed in

his case. The agency treated complainant's �appeal� as a timely filed

formal complaint of discrimination. The Commission, therefore, treats

this October 27, 1999 letter as complainant's formal complaint.