Gregory R. Blackman, Complainant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 26, 2000
01a02539 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 26, 2000)

01a02539

07-26-2000

Gregory R. Blackman, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Gregory R. Blackman v. Department of the Army

01A02539

July 26, 2000

Gregory R. Blackman, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A02539

) Agency No. AGWIF09909J0060

Louis Caldera, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Army, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On February 22, 2000, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD), dismissing 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.<1> The

Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

On September 21, 1999, complainant contacted the EEO office regarding

claims of discrimination based on race (black), claiming that he was not

selected for the XH-2805-11 Electrician position for which he applied

and was qualified. Informal efforts to resolve complainant's concerns

were unsuccessful. On December 13, 1999, complainant filed a formal

complaint.

The agency issued a FAD, dated February 4, 2000, dismissing the

complaint for untimely counselor contact and on the alternative grounds

of mootness. Specifically, the FAD states that complainant applied by

May 25, 1999 for the XH-2805-11 electrician position.

Complainant contends that he became aware that the position was filled

when another employee began working in the electrician position. The

record reflects that the selectee commenced working in the electrician

position on or about September 12, 1999. The EEO Counselor's report

indicates that the successful candidate for the electrician position was

selected on July 29, 1999, the date of the alleged discriminatory event.

The agency contends that complainant would have received the denial

letter no later than sometime during the week of July 26, 1999 and should

therefore have contacted the EEO Counselor no later than the week of

September 13, 1999. The agency concluded that because complainant did

not contact the EEO Counselor until September 21, 1999, his initial EEO

Counselor contact was untimely.

The Commission has adopted a �reasonable suspicion� standard (as opposed

to a �supportive facts� standard) to determine when the forty-five (45)

day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation

is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,

but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination become

apparent.

The agency does not provide a copy of the denial letter allegedly sent

to complainant, but acknowledges on appeal that complainant never would

have received any correspondence from the Civilian Personnel Operation

Center (CPOC) concerning a non-referral for an electrician position,

because his application was inadvertently filed for the Lock and Dam

position and that only those applicants who applied for the electrician

position would have received any correspondence regarding a denial of

an electrician position. In the absence of a complainant's receipt of

a denial letter for the electrician position, the Commission determines

that it is reasonable that complainant would only have discovered that the

position was given to another applicant when the selectee started working.

Because complainant contacted the EEO Counselor on September 21, 1999,

we therefore determine that his initial EEO Counselor contact is timely.

Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint for untimely

EEO Counselor contact is REVERSED.

The agency also dismissed the complaint on the alternative grounds

of mootness. Specifically, the agency determined that when it was

discovered that the CPOC had inadvertently filed complainant's self

nomination in a folder for a Lock Master position, the agency claims

the CPOC immediately followed procedures to register complainant in a

priority consideration program and informed complainant of the priority

placement on January 7, 2000. Because the CPOC has followed procedures

to place complainant in the priority placement program, the agency claims

that the complaint is moot.

Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5)) provides for the dismissal of a

complaint when the issues raised therein are moot. To determine whether

the issues raised in complainant's complaint are moot, the factfinder

must ascertain whether (1) it can be said with assurance that there is

no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur; and

(2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated

the effects of the alleged discrimination. See County of Los Angeles

v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Kuo v. Department of the Navy, EEOC

Request no. 05970343 (July 10, 1998). When such circumstances exist,

no relief is available and no need for a determination of the rights of

the parties is presented.

While the agency has recognized its mistake in misfiling complainant's

self-nomination application into the Lock and Dam Operator and

placed complainant in a priority placement program, the effect of the

non-referral has not been alleviated. The record reflects that complainant

has not been placed in an electrician position and is still waiting for an

available position. Given the circumstances of this case, the Commission

determines that complainant's complaint has not been rendered moot,

and the agency's decision to dismiss it on these grounds is REVERSED.

In summary, the agency's decision to dismiss the instant complaint on

the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact and on the alternative

grounds of mootness is REVERSED. The instant complaint is REMANDED to

the agency for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER (E0400)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims 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 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 (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

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 (R0400)

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:

July 26, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.