Margaret A. Howley, Complainant,v.Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 23, 2001
01995238 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 23, 2001)

01995238

02-23-2001

Margaret A. Howley, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Margaret A. Howley v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01995238

February 23, 2001

.

Margaret A. Howley,

Complainant,

v.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01995238

Agency No. 99-0626

DECISION

On June 18, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from an agency decision pertaining to her 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.<1> The Commission

accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.405.

Complainant contacted the EEO office regarding claims of sexual

harassment. Specifically, complainant alleged that she was sexually

harassed on March 17, 1997, when a Recreation Therapist grabbed her around

the waist with one hand and fondled her right breast with the other hand.

The therapist also allegedly put his hand on her crotch and asked what

color bra she was wearing. Informal efforts to resolve complainant's

concerns were unsuccessful. On March 24, 1999, complainant filed a

formal complaint.

On May 21, 1999, the agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint for

failure to state a claim. The agency determined that during the relevant

time period complainant was not an employee or applicant for employment,

but rather an agency volunteer. The agency determined that complainant

did not have an employment contract with the agency and did not receive

remuneration or employment benefits. Noting that the Commission does

not have jurisdiction over volunteers unless there is a link between

volunteer work and regular employment, the agency further determined

that there was no connection between volunteering and employment at the

VA Medical and Regional Office Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

On appeal, complainant contends that she was the victim of sexual

harassment and she should be considered a �worker� by the agency.

Complainant argues that the volunteer orientation included information

on the agency's sexual harassment policy. She also argues that if

volunteers are not subject to and protected by such policies, there

would be no need for such training. Moreover, complainant notes that

the volunteer handbook states that volunteers are considered �employees�

and are eligible for workers' compensation benefits. According to

complainant, the volunteer training �leads unpaid employees to believe

they enjoy the protection of federal law.�

In response, the agency acknowledges that volunteers are considered

employees for the purpose of workers' compensation statutes, but argues

volunteers are not employees for the purposes of Title VII. In addition,

the agency disputes complainant's assertion that volunteers were misled

to believe they were covered by Title VII. The agency reiterates its

contention that the volunteer program was not a prerequisite to regular

employment and volunteers were not given preferential consideration

during the employment process. The agency concludes that complainant

is therefore not an employee or an applicant for employment and is not

covered by Title VII.

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in

relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to

state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved

employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been

discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,

sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103,

.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined

an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with

respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

Only in a narrow set of circumstances, usually where the volunteer is

performing services for the agency as part of an educational program

and received remuneration or where the volunteer service often leads to

regular employment, has the Commission held that a volunteer is protected

by Title VII. See Phillips v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC

Appeal No. 01893011 (Sept. 13, 1989) (citing Pollack v. Rice University,

28 FEP Cases 1273 (S.D. Texas 1982)(court found that because service

for remuneration was incidental to scholastic program, plaintiff was a

student and not an employee). In the instant case, the agency contends

that there is no connection between volunteer work and regular employment.

The Commission determines that there is sufficient evidence of record

to support the agency's contention. Therefore, we find that the agency

properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing the complaint was proper

and is hereby AFFIRMED.

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

February 23, 2001

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.