John Ternullo, Complainant,v.Richard Danzig, Agency No. 96-66604-009 Secretary, 97-66604-001 Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 20, 1999
05980694 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 20, 1999)

05980694

11-20-1999

John Ternullo, Complainant, v. Richard Danzig, Agency No. 96-66604-009 Secretary, 97-66604-001 Department of the Navy, Agency.


John Ternullo, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Request No. 05980694

) Appeal No. 01972522

Richard Danzig, )

Agency No. 96-66604-009

Secretary, )

97-66604-001

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 6, 1998, John Ternullo (hereinafter referred to as complainant)

initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

Commission) to reconsider the decision in Ternullo v. Department of the

Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01972522 (April 23, 1998). In 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29

C.F.R. �1614.405(b)), the regulations provide that the Commissioners may,

in their discretion, reconsider any previous decision where the party

demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved clearly erroneous

interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have

a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of the

agency. 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b).<1>

Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on April 11, 1996, claiming

disability discrimination when, among other things, he was continually

denied travel/training opportunities. Complainant received a notice of

final interview (the Notice) on June 24, 1996; and thereafter filed a

formal EEO complaint (Complaint 1).The agency issued a final agency

decision (FAD 1) which dismissed claims relative to travel/training

requests on the grounds that he did not provide evidence of training

opportunities which were denied within the time period occurring between

forty-five (45) days prior to April 11, 1996 and June 24, 1996.

In October 1996, complainant filed another formal EEO complaint (Complaint

2). Complainant claimed, in relevant part, that he was discriminated

against when he: (1) received a Decision to Suspend dated September 10,

1996 and; (2) received a Letter of Reprimand dated September 19, 1996.

The agency issued a FAD which dismissed the two claims on the grounds

that complainant had raised the issues through the negotiated grievance

procedure. The record shows that complainant filed grievances regarding

the suspension and the reprimand on September 18, 1996 and September 19,

1996 respectively. Complaints 1 and 2 were consolidated for processing.

The previous decision found that the agency properly dismissed

complainant's claims regarding the agency's repeated denials of requested

training because, even on appeal, complainant had submitted no evidence

which proved that any of the claimed denials were timely raised.

The previous decision also found that the record did not support the

agency's dismissal of the other two claims. While the previous decision

acknowledged that complainant filed grievances regarding the agency's

issuance of the suspension and the reprimand, it found that the record

did not demonstrate that the relevant collective bargaining agreement

permitted claims of illegal discrimination to be raised.

Travel/Training Opportunities (Complaint 1)

In his request for reconsideration, complainant asserts that the agency

failed to address his claims regarding the denial of travel requests

and also challenges the agency's dismissal for untimeliness.

First, we reject complainant's contention that the agency failed to

adequately address his claims of discriminatory denials of his requests

for travel. The record shows that the requests for travel complainant

refers to are those in connection with training requests. Moreover,

the term �travel/training� were used by both complainant and the agency

at points during the administrative process.

Regarding the timeliness issue, complainant reiterates that he identified

denials of training opportunities which were timely. Complainant

includes two typewritten formal requests for training dated March 6,

1996 and April 1, 1996. In the top right hand corner of each request

complainant has written March 7, 1996 and April 2, 1996 respectively as

the dates the requests were denied. The record shows that the training

requested occurred at the agency on the dates of March 18 - 20, 1996

and April 15, 1996. Complainant also includes a calendar in which he

has typed in the respective dates that he requested and was denied such

training. Complainant submits no other new evidence or argument.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved

person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date

of the matter claimed to be discriminatory or, in the case of personnel

action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. Initially,

we find that the previous decision properly determined that there was

no evidence in the previous appeal file of any travel/training requests

which were denied within the applicable time period. However, in his

request for reconsideration, complainant submits evidence of two denials

of training during the applicable time period. We note that the agency,

while challenging the credibility of the submitted calendar, provides

no rebuttal to the other evidence submitted by complainant regarding the

March 18-20 and the April 15, 1996 training. Complainant's request does

not meet the requirements for reconsideration. However, after considering

the information on its own motion, the Commission finds that the agency

should be required to accept claims concerning the denial of training

on March 7, 1996 and April 2, 1996.

Suspension and Reprimand (Complaint 2)

In its request for reconsideration, the agency provides a copy of the

agency's �FUSE Negotiated Grievance Procedure Agreement� which states

in pertinent part that �this procedure shall be the exclusive procedure

available to the parties and Unit employees. This procedure does not

cover matters listed in Appendix A. In matters for which statutory

appeal procedures exist, the employee shall elect whether to raise the

matter under statutory or negotiated procedures, but not both.� Though

the agency's request for reconsideration is denied because it does not

meet the requirements for reconsideration, the Commission reconsiders

the matter on its own motion.

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

referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(4)), the regulations provide that

an agency shall dismiss a complaint where the complainant has raised

the matter in a negotiated grievance procedure that permits claims

of discrimination . Here, the agency provided sufficient evidence,

as indicated above, that the relevant negotiated grievance procedure

permitted claims either to be raised through the EEO process or through

the grievance procedure. The record shows that complainant raised

the two claims first through the grievance procedure.<2>

Therefore, after a review of the requests for reconsideration, the

previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that

the requests do not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b), and

it is the decision of the Commission to deny the requests in part, and

to REVERSE, in part, the previous Commission's decision as it pertains

to the denial of travel/training opportunities; this matter is REMANDED

for further processing in accordance with the ORDER below. The portion

of the previous decision relating to the suspension and the reprimand is

REVERSED and the portion of the FAD relating to this issue is affirmed.

There is no further right of administrative appeal from the decision of

the Commission on this request for reconsideration.

ORDER (E1092)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims in accordance with

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 appellant requests a

final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision

within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgement 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).

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:

Nov. 20, 1999

______________ ______________________

DATE Frances M. Hart

Executive

Officer

Executive

Secretariat

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:

1 On 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.

2 We note that the agency failed to comply with 29 C.F.R. �1614.301(a),

which provides that when an agency dismisses an EEO complaint because the

complainant has filed a grievance on the same matter, it should advise

the complainant of his right to appeal the final grievance decision to

the Commission. However, here, complainant admits that he did not raise

discrimination issues in his grievance and as such, we find that the

agency properly dismissed these claims. The agency is reminded that it

must comply with 29 C.F.R. �1614.301(a) in the future.