Mary L. Carter, Complainant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 26, 2000
01a03571 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 26, 2000)

01a03571

07-26-2000

Mary L. Carter, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Mary L. Carter v. Department of the Army

01A03571

07-26-00

.

Mary L. Carter,

Complainant,

v.

Louis Caldera,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A03571

Agency No. AUGEFO9911J0220

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The final agency decision was dated March

15, 2000, and received by complainant on March 20, 2000. The appeal

was postmarked on April 17, 2000. Accordingly, the appeal is timely

(see 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)), and is accepted in accordance with 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed complainant's

complaint as moot.

BACKGROUND

Complainant filed a formal complaint on February 3, 2000, alleging

discrimination on the bases of race (Black) and sex (female) when she was

subjected to hostile working conditions at the agency facility to which

she was assigned. Her complaint listed a number of working conditions

she claimed were discriminatory, and as part of her requested relief,

she asked to be moved to a different agency facility, and to have no

further contact with the supervisor named in her complaint as the source

of the discrimination. Complainant did not request compensatory damages.

In its final agency decision (FAD), the agency dismissed the complaint as

moot, finding that because complainant had been reassigned to a different

agency facility, as she requested, the issues regarding her working

conditions had been resolved. The new facility was in the same general

geographic area as complainant's original facility. This appeal followed.

Complainant argued on appeal that her complaint was not moot because she

had also originally requested as relief in her complaint the ability to

work from home in a �flexi-place� arrangement �a few days a week.� She

claimed that because her daily commute was two hours each way before her

reassignment and was now anywhere between three and four hours each way

after the reassignment, her working conditions were still unacceptable.

She argued that this precluded her complaint from being moot.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be

codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5)) provides

for the dismissal of a complaint when the issues raised therein are moot.

To determine whether the issues raised in complainant's complaint are

moot, the factfinder must ascertain whether (1) it can be said with

assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged

violation will recur; and (2) interim relief or events have completely

and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged discrimination.

See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Kuo

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970343 (July 10, 1998).

When such circumstances exist, no relief is available and no need for

a determination of the rights of the parties is presented. In this

case, the complainant was transferred to a different agency facility at

her request, with no loss in pay grade or change in position, thereby

effectively ending the possibility of future violations.

Furthermore, with respect to complainant's argument on appeal that her

complaint is not moot because she was not granted her �flexi-place�

request, which would have allowed her to work at home a �few� or �at

least 3" days a week, we find that argument unconvincing. A review of

the record reveals that in the EEO counseling stage, attempts were made to

resolve complainant's request to be granted �flexi-place.� According to

the record, complainant's agency does allow the use of �flexi-place� but

leaves it up to each Division Chief as to whether to institute the use

of �flexi-place� in their respective division. Complainant's Division

Chief has chosen not to institute �flexi-place� in his division due to

the nature of the work performed and therefore, complainant's request

to be allowed the use of �flexi-place� was turned down for that reason.

We find that because no employee in complainant's division was entitled

to the use of �flexi-place,� it was not a remedy to which she would have

been entitled, and therefore does not preclude the complaint from being

rendered moot by her reassignment to a different agency facility.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the agency is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

__07-26-00________________

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

______________________________

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.