01a02907
03-22-2001
Julie L. Williams, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Julie L. Williams v. Department of Agriculture
01A02907
March 22, 2001
.
Julie L. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02907
Agency No. 870807
Hearing No. 350-99-8027XX
DECISION
This claim is before the Commission under the terms of an October
1993 class action settlement and an EEOC Order implementing it.<1>
Pursuant to the Order, the Commission docketed the instant appeal upon
the completion of the fact finding procedure on the claimant's case.<2>
The fact finding procedure was established to examine claims for relief
of class members certified in Sonia Byrd v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Hearing No. 250-90-8171X, in accordance with the terms of an October
10, 1993 settlement between the class representative and the agency.
For the reasons that follow, we find that the claimant is not entitled
to relief.
The history of the underlying class action is well-documented.<3>
Briefly, the class agent filed a formal class EEO complaint against the
agency on August 7, 1987, alleging that the qualification requirements for
positions in the GS-475 series of the agency's Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA) discriminated against women.<4> The class action challenged the
requirement that persons seeking GS-475 positions possess a degree in
agriculture or have completed thirty semester hours of agriculture-related
course work. An Administrative Judge (AJ) recommended certification
of a class, which was modified by the Commission. It also added the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as a party to the complaint.
Byrd v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 05900291 (May 30,
1990).
On October 10, 1993, the parties entered into a settlement. It provided,
in pertinent part, that OPM would revise the qualification standards
for GS-475 positions in order to permit an individual to qualify
through education only, experience only, or a combination of the two.
It further stated that the agency would institute an individual claim
system, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.204(1)(3), for class members
to make claims for individual relief if they believed that they were
affected by the positive education requirement for the GS-475 series.
Potential relief for individual class members was limited to those who
would have been qualified for positions in the GS-475 series under the
revised standard any time between October 12, 1986 and August 7, 1994.
Potential relief for individual class members was also limited to that
relief that would have been available under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
and did not include compensatory or punitive damages.
The claimant began working for FmHA in April 1988. She submitted a
resignation in January 1991, but sought to rescind it the same month.
The claimant has averred that she resigned to return to school to meet
the positive education requirement under the old GS-475 qualification
standard. Pursuant to an individual settlement in April 1991, the
claimant agreed to resign effective July 25, 1991, to be on leave
without pay (LWOP) from January 26, 1991 onward, and to withdraw an
appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board and any EEO complaints and
administrative grievances she had pending before the agency. In exchange,
the agency agreed to pay the claimant $20,000.
Pursuant to the class-action settlement, in March or April 1995 the
claimant submitted a claim with the agency. While stating that there
were other positions for which she would have applied if she was not told
by FmHA management that she did not qualify, the claimant was able to
identify one such position which was advertised with a closing date of
February 6, 1991. Specifically, under an upward mobility program, FmHA
advertised the position of Loan Specialist, GS-1165-5/7, target position
Agricultural Management Specialist (Assistant County Supervisor), GS-475-9
in the Kingman, Arizona County Office. The claimant averred that when
she inquired about the position, she was told by a personnel specialist
that she did not have the right education and county office experience.
The agency issued a decision on the claimant's claim in October 1995.
It determined that while the claimant met the �education requirement�
under the revised GS-475 qualification standards in April 1988, she was
not entitled to relief because the Loan Specialist, GS-1165-5/7 position
did not have a positive education requirement.
The claimant filed an appeal with the Commission. The claimant wrote
that she just found in her old papers a July 1990 application for the
position of Assistant County Supervisor, GS-475-5, in Snowflake, Arizona.
She stated that she did not actually apply because she was told by her
supervisor that she did not qualify. The record now reflects that the
position was filled in September 1990 through an FmHA national register.
On July 3, 1997, the Commission issued the decision in Mitchell et al.
It determined that many of the claims that the agency previously rejected,
including that of the claimant, required reconsideration using a fact
finding procedure it set forth. Specifically, the claims were referred
to neutral fact finders, who were tasked with determining individual
class members' entitlement to relief, and, thereafter, issuing recommended
findings of fact. The Commission also determined that, where the claimant
shows that she was a member of the class and was affected by the positive
education requirement, the burden of proof shifts to the agency to show,
by clear and convincing evidence, that it had legitimate reasons for
the adverse action at issue. See also Mitchell, et al. v. Department
of Agriculture, EEOC Petition No. 04970021 (December 4, 1997).
The claimant's claim was referred to an EEOC AJ with the Phoenix,
Arizona District Office for fact finding. The AJ ordered the claimant
to provide information showing that she met the revised GS-475-5 general
experience standard. The claimant responded with relevant information.
To meet the revised GS-475-5 qualification standards, an individual
is required to have either a four year course of study above the high
school level leading to a bachelor's degree in certain majors of study,
or general experience of three years, one of which must be equivalent
to at least the GS-4 level.<5> The claimant was scheduled to earn her
bachelor's degree in 1995. The agency wrote to the AJ that it mistakenly
found the claimant met the revised GS-475 qualification standards under
education in April 1988 because she did not earn her bachelor's degree
until 1995. It also contended that the claimant did not meet the revised
GS-475-5 general experience standard.
The AJ issued a recommended finding of fact denying the claimant's claim.
As an initial matter, the AJ addressed whether the claimant met the
revised qualification standards for the Assistant County Supervisor,
GS-475-5, job in Snowflake, Arizona which was filled in September 1990.
The claimant started working for FmHA in Arizona as a Clerk Typist
(District Office Clerk), GS-322-4. She was promoted to the position
of Administrative Services Clerk (Typing), GS-303-5 in Arizona in
November 1989. After going on LWOP in January 1991, she resigned from
FmHA in July 1991. The AJ found that none of the claimant's work at
FmHA went toward the GS-475-5 revised general experience standard when
the Snowflake position was filled, nor did she qualify for it under
the revised education standard. The AJ also found that experience the
claimant had outside FmHA did not meet the general experience standard.
The AJ also found that the claimant did not show she was entitled to the
position of Loan Specialist, GS-1165-5/7, because she had resigned from
the agency before it was filled.
In accordance with the procedures set forth in Mitchell, et al
v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01960816 (July 3, 1997),
the claimant's claim was automatically docketed as the instant appeal.
On appeal, the claimant argues that the settlement covers the Loan
Specialist, GS-1165-5/7 position, and that she did not resign in January
1991, but in July 1991 after the position was filled. But the settlement
changed the qualification standards only for GS-475 series positions,
and only covers GS-475 jobs. Because the Loan Specialist, GS-1165-5/7
job is not covered by the class-action settlement, the settlement provides
no remedy for that job.
Next, the claimant argues that the AJ improperly did not credit
her education experience toward meeting the revised GS-475 series
qualification standards. But the claimant did not earn a bachelor's
degree until 1995, after the period covered by the settlement.
Accordingly, she did not meet the revised GS-475-5 education standard.
The claimant argues that she met the general experience standard.
The record shows that she did not meet this standard for the entire period
covered by the settlement, i.e., from October 12, 1986 to August 7, 1994.
Even if all the claimant's work experience with FmHA counted toward the
general experience standard, she had less than three years experience
because she went on LWOP in January 1991. Moreover, the claimant did
not have experience outside FmHA that would count toward the general
experience standard. Since the claimant did not meet the revised GS-475
series standards, she is not entitled to relief under the class-action
settlement.
CONCLUSION
The claimant is not entitled to the relief that she has requested.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
2. 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 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 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, 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:
______________________________
Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
March 22, 2001
__________________
Date
1The Order was made in Mitchell, et al. v. Department of Agriculture,
EEOC Appeal No. 01960816 (July 3, 1997). It was clarified in Mitchell,
et al. v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Petition No. 04970021 (December
4, 1997).
2On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations, found at
29 C.F.R. Part 1614, apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending
at any stage in the administrative process. The regulations, as amended,
are posted on the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
3See, e.g., Byrd v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01890012
(December 11, 1989), reconsideration granted, Byrd v. Department of
Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 05900291 (May 30, 1990); Byrd v. Department
of Agriculture & Office of Personnel Management, EEOC Appeal No. 01913964
(March 17, 1992).
4As stated in Mitchell, the primary occupational titles for jobs in the
GS-475 series included District Director, Assistant District Director,
County Supervisor, and Assistant County Supervisor.
5The qualification standards defined general experience for GS-5 positions
as experience providing an understanding of the fundamental principles and
techniques of agricultural management and the principles and practices of
credit and finance or other work appropriate to the position being filled.
The standards listed some examples.