0120180046
03-05-2018
Kevin Franken Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Kevin Franken
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120180046
Agency No. ARCEHECSA17MAR01507
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated August 17, 2017, dismissing his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was a former Park Ranger in the Sacramento, California District of the Army Corps of Engineers. On June 1, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of sex (male), religion (unspecified), disability (mental and physical unspecified), age (42), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (more than 300 prior EEO complaints) when the Agency's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) management and staff and Sacramento District chain of command subjected him to hostile work environment harassment. Complainant alleged that, in late 2016 through 2017, the Sacramento District and San Francisco District EEO Managers and Specialists were discourteous to him by failing to respond to his communications or responding in a condescending and disrespectful manner, failed to have adequate EEO staff available, delayed processing an EEO matter, and neglected to provide EEO forms as required
with official correspondence. Further, Complainant alleged that the District chain of command failed to supervise its employees appropriately, which resulted in discrimination and harassment.
On August 17, 2017, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the instant complaint. The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), finding that Complainant was not aggrieved. The Agency also dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8), for solely raising claims that allege dissatisfaction with the processing of a prior complaint. The instant appeal from Complainant followed.
On appeal, Complainant stated, "The agency was wrong to fragment and separate this complaint out of my 300 other EEO complaints. The agency should have considered this complaint along with and in the context of my 300 other EEO complaints."
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8) provides, in relevant part, that an Agency shall dismiss claims alleging dissatisfaction with the processing of a prior complaint. Dissatisfaction with the EEO process must be raised within the underlying complaint, not a new complaint. See EEOC Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (MD-110), Ch. 5, § III(F) (revised August 5, 2015).
Here, we conclude that the Agency correctly characterized the instant complaint as solely raising allegations that prior EEO complaints were improperly processed by the Agency, including EEO officials failing to respond to communication from Complainant, responding in a negative manner, and/or failing to provide official documents to Complainant. Accordingly, it should be viewed as a "spin-off complaint" subject to dismissal under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter
the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 5, 2018
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120180046
4
0120180046