James L. Collins, Appellant,v.Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 5, 1999
01991350_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 5, 1999)

01991350_r

11-05-1999

James L. Collins, Appellant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.


James L. Collins, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01991350

) Agency No. DOT 6-98-6096

Rodney E. Slater, )

Secretary, )

Department of Transportation, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On May 19, 1998, appellant filed a formal complaint of discrimination,

alleging that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race

(African-American), color (Black), and age (date of birth January 21,

1940) 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.

By notice of processing dated July 20, 1998, the agency accepted the

following allegations:

Appellant was eligible for a Permanent-Change-of-Station (PCS) move,

but when appellant received a travel authorization for a PCS move in

December 1997, the move was temporary, covering a period of less than

two years. Appellant was aware of two similarly-situated employees who

also were transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),

and granted PCS moves;

Appellant's supervisor denied appellant's requests to telecommute in

January 1997 and April 1997, and appellant's request to work out of the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Los Angeles office in January 1997.

Younger employees were allowed to telecommute on a regular basis;

In February 1997, appellant was prescribed medication for diabetes,

and in April 1997, appellant was on medication for severe infections in

both eyes. During appellant's May 1997 meeting with his supervisor to

discuss his performance appraisal, the supervisor told appellant that

he needed more executive reports from appellant. The supervisor also

told appellant to consider disability retirement because of his medical

conditions, and to contact personnel to request disability retirement;

On June 11, 1997, the supervisor told appellant that appellant's medical

condition would not allow him to attend the Academy, and again suggested

that appellant seek a medical retirement and check with Social Security;

The supervisor took away appellant's assigned government duties, and

assigned appellant to answer all telephone calls concerning ICC issues.

Also, someone anonymously placed an article concerning �Breaking Down

the Barriers� in appellant's office mail slot; and

The supervisor inquired on several occasions whether appellant was

planning to retire.

The agency then amended its notice of processing by letter dated November

3, 1998. The amended notice re-characterized appellant's allegations as

�[appellant] was subjected to a hostile work environment and disparate

treatment by [his] supervisor. . . .� The amended notice also found that

the separate and discrete individual instances relating to appellant's

complaint were not being accepted, but �[would] be considered as evidence

proffered in support of the accepted allegations, and the investigation

[would] consider all alleged factual examples of discrimination contained

in appellant's formal complaint.�

Appellant received a copy of the amended notice on November 12, 1998,

and timely appealed to the Commission on December 4, 1998. On appeal,

appellant argues that his allegations must include reference to his

requested PCS move. Appellant believes that the PCS move, a right

mandated by Congress, should be the paramount consideration in his

complaint. Appellant also contends that the amended notice sought to

minimize the impact of appellant's complaint by re-characterizing it as

a question of whether appellant suffered from a hostile work environment

or discrimination at the hands of one person. Appellant contends that

more than just his supervisor has subverted his rights.

The Commission finds that the agency, to avoid fragmenting appellant's

complaint, attempted to distinguish appellant's claims of hostile

work environment and disparate treatment from the factual allegations

supporting them. The agency's definition of the claims, however,

is inadequate absent some reference to the claims' factual context.

The Commission finds that appellant raised two separate claims:

(1) disparate treatment regarding appellant's requests for PCS moves

and flexible workplace telecommuting; and (2) hostile work environment

harassment regarding suggestions of retirement and reassignment of duties.

Further, a review of the record reveals that appellant alleges harm

from officials other than his supervisor alone. In fact, allegation (1)

from the original notice of processing does not list the supervisor as

the sole responsible agency official. Accordingly, appellant's claims

should appear as follows:

Appellant claims that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of

race (African-American), color (Black), and age (date of birth January 21,

1940), when he was subjected to disparate treatment regarding his PCS and

flexible workplace telecommuting requests, and hostile work environment

harassment regarding his supervisor's suggestions that appellant retire,

and reassignment of appellant's duties.

The Commission reminds the agency that its amended notice explicitly

provides for all of the factual allegations contained in appellant's

formal complaint to be considered as evidence of appellant's claims.

Appellant's allegations have not been dismissed, but have been

incorporated into the claims that they support. Therefore, the agency

must investigate all of the factual allegations listed in appellant's

formal complaint.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, to the extent that the agency has dismissed appellant's

factual allegations, the agency's decision is REVERSED, and

the allegations are REMANDED for investigation as provided below.

The agency's definition of appellant's claims also is REVERSED, and the

claims are REMANDED as provided below.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following actions:

Redefine appellant's complaint as provided above. The agency shall

issue appellant a new notice of processing, with the redefined claims,

within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.

Thereafter, the agency shall conduct an investigation as provided in EEOC

Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.108. The investigation shall include all of

the factual allegations raised in appellant's complaint and listed in

the original notice of processing.

The agency shall submit a copy of the new notice of processing to the

Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

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 appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The appellant 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. ��1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the appellant 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. ��1614.408 and 1614.409. 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

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

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. It is the position of the Commission that 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. You should be aware, however, that courts in some

jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner

suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS from the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your

civil action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN

THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision

or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the

jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

November 5, 1999

__________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations