05990470
04-04-2000
Joel Arnold, Robert Maxwell, and Allen McDaniel, Complainants, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, (Minerals Management Service), Agency.
Joel Arnold, Robert Maxwell, and Allen McDaniel v. Department of the Interior
05990470
April 4, 2000
Joel Arnold, Robert Maxwell, )
and Allen McDaniel, )
Complainants, ) Request Nos. 05990470, 05990471
) 05990472
v. ) Appeal Nos. 01971970, 01971969
) 01971968
Bruce Babbitt, ) Agency Nos. LMS-95-009
Secretary, ) LMS-95-012
Department of the Interior, ) LMS-95-013
(Minerals Management Service), ) Hearing Nos. 310-96-5037X
Agency. ) 310-96-5034X
) 310-96-5033X
)
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 4, 1999 the complainants timely initiated a request to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the
separate decisions in Arnold v. Department of the Interior (Minerals
Management Service), EEOC Appeal No. 01971970 (January 29, 1999),
Maxwell v. Department of the Interior (Minerals Management Service),
EEOC Appeal No. 01971969 (January 29, 1999), and McDaniel v. Department
of the Interior (Minerals Management Service), EEOC Appeal No. 01971968
(January 29, 1999). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, reconsider a previous decision where the party
demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations
of the agency. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified as
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).<1>
The complainants filed EEO complaints alleging discrimination on the bases
of their sex (male), race (Caucasian), and/or age (over 40) when they
were not selected for one position that was advertised under one vacancy
announcement. The same law firm represented all three complainants. The
three complaints were consolidated for hearing because of the similarity
of issues and witnesses. In June 1996, following the hearing, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission administrative judge (AJ) issued a
decision recommending a finding of sex, race and age discrimination for
all three complainants. In August 1996, the agency issued three separate
final decisions, adopting the AJ's findings of sex discrimination, but
rejecting the findings of age and race discrimination on the grounds that
they were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The remedies
ordered by the agency tracked those recommended by the AJ, including
the provision for the payment of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Thereafter, the complainants' attorney submitted a request for attorney's
fees and costs for work associated with the successful prosecution of
the three complaints. In his request, counsel claimed fees and costs
of $43,184.93. In January 1997, the agency issued one final decision
awarding $35,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
The previous decisions affirmed the final agency decisions. The
complainants' attorney then filed one request for reconsideration for all
three decisions, arguing his fees and costs should not have been reduced.
By letter to the Commission in March 1999, the agency argues that the
Commission should cease processing of the complainants' complaints
because they were part of a civil action filed by the complainants.
By letter to the complainants in March 1999, the agency notified them
that it was ceasing administrative processing of their complaints for
the same reason. The agency submits documentation showing that in
December 1996 the complainants filed Civil Action 3-96CV3077-P in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division explicitly invoking the jurisdiction of the court, in relevant
part, under 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. They were represented
by the same attorney who represented them at the administrative level.
In the civil action the complainants alleged discrimination with regard
to the same non-selection that was the subject of their administrative
complaints, and referenced the hearing by the AJ and the agency's final
decisions of August 1996. As a group the complainants requested greater
equitable relief than that ordered by the agency. They also sought
compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs.
On April 26, 1999, the court issued a final judgment. It ruled that
pursuant to a jury verdict of April 23, 1999 and a previous ruling of
the court, plaintiff "Bobby Maxwell" was awarded compensatory damages of
$300,000, and all the plaintiffs were awarded costs and attorney's fees.
It instructed that claims for attorney's fees must be made in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).<2>
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (to be codified as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409)
provides that filing a civil action shall terminate Commission processing
of the appeal. Here, the complainants filed a civil action regarding
the same matter in their EEO complaints. Accordingly, administrative
processing of their administrative EEO complaints is terminated.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the record, the Commission finds that in view of
the complainant's filing a civil action on the same matter in their
EEO complaints, administrative processing of their EEO complaints is
terminated.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
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 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.
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:
April 4, 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 the complainants, their 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 plaintiffs were captioned in the final judgement as "JOEL ARNOLD,
ET AL...." The Commission contacted a court clerk, who indicated that
according to a computerized docket sheet, all three plaintiffs were in
the case when the final judgement was entered.