Jerome Deas, Petitioner,v.Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 20, 2009
0320090074 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 20, 2009)

0320090074

08-20-2009

Jerome Deas, Petitioner, v. Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.


Jerome Deas,

Petitioner,

v.

Ray H. LaHood,

Secretary,

Department of Transportation,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320090074

MSPB No. AT-0752-07-0563-B-1

DECISION

On June 8, 2009, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order

issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning his claim

of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.

Petitioner is an Air Traffic Controller at the agency's Air Traffic

Control Tower in Charleston, South Carolina. He alleged that he

was discriminated against on the basis of race (African American)

when, effective March 5, 2007, he was placed on enforced leave during

an ongoing investigation. The record indicates that in late 2006,

the agency's Accountability Board was investigating allegations that

petitioner made derogatory racial and religious remarks creating an

intimidating environment. While it appears that petitioner was initially

placed on paid administrative leave, prior to the Accountability Board's

final determination, petitioner's Front Line Manager (Manager) issued a

January 26, 2007 notice proposing to place petitioner on enforced leave

without pay for 30 days. Specifically, the Manager took the action

based on petitioner's remark that he was "going to [his] car to get

[his] gun." Petitioner was given 15 days to reply. In March 2007,

while a final decision on the proposed enforced leave was pending,

petitioner's administrative leave status was changed to sick leave.

On April 19, 2007, petitioner was informed that the change from paid

administrative leave to sick leave was done erroneously. The agency

changed petitioner's leave status back to administrative leave, restored

his sick leave and corrected its records.

During this time, petitioner filed an appeal with the MSPB on March 26,

2007, alleging discrimination when he was placed on enforced leave

during the investigation by the Accountability Board. The agency

moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. An initial decision was issued

on October 16, 2007, dismissing the matter as moot. On May 12, 2008,

the MSPB remanded the matter back for further processing related to

whether petitioner's suspension was completely rescinded and his claim

of discrimination. The Board wanted to explore whether the agency had

completely rescinded petitioner's constructive suspension and whether

his claim of discrimination was non-frivolous.

On December 24, 2008, the MSPB AJ issued an initial decision finding that

because the agency rescinded the action, the matter was moot. However,

in determining mootness, the AJ looked at petitioner's discrimination

claim. The AJ found that petitioner did not establish a prima facie case

of race discrimination. Specifically, the MSPB AJ found that petitioner

failed to proffer similarly situated employees who were engaged in similar

misconduct during the course of an ongoing investigation. The MSPB

AJ's decision did not give petitioner appeal rights to the Commission.

Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board. The Board members could not

agree on the disposition of the petition. Therefore, on May 19, 2009,

the Board issued its Order stating that the MSPB AJ's decision became the

MSPB's final decision. It is from this Order, this petition followed.

EEOC regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over

mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes

determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303

et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the

MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a

correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy

directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

Based upon a thorough review of the record, it is the decision of the

Commission to concur with the final decision of the MSPB finding no

discrimination. The Commission finds that the MSPB's decision correctly

determined that petitioner failed to establish his claim of race-based

discrimination and this decision is supported by the evidence in the

record as a whole.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0408)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of

administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right

to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within

thirty (30) calendar days of 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.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

August 20, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0320090074

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

3

0320090074