Mary M. LaMoy, Complainant,v.Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 30, 2000
01992649 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 30, 2000)

01992649

03-30-2000

Mary M. LaMoy, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Mary M. LaMoy, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01992649<1>

) Agency No. 950526

Daniel R. Glickman, )

Secretary, )

Department of Agriculture, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On February 11, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal of a January 6,

1999, dismissing the claims in her complaint for raising the same matters

in a negotiated grievance and in an appeal to Merit Systems Protection

Board (MSPB) and for failure to state a claim.<2>

In its final decision, the agency identified complainant's complaint as

whether complainant, an Airplane Pilot, GS-12, was discriminated against

when she was subjected to a hostile work environment concerning: the

December 1993 removal from flight duty on large aircraft after reporting

unsafe conditions; the derogatory comments made during the March 13, 1995

meeting to resolve her negotiated grievance; the alleged comments about

her being paranoid by the immediate supervisor while she was on leave

which were made known to her on April 24, 1995; and the allegedly unsafe

workplace since the acting first line supervisor carried a concealed

weapon to the office. The agency also indicated that on September 6,

1995, complainant amended her complaint to add that: on July 25, 1995,

she was told that the acting first line supervisor was spreading false

statements about her being pregnant and �trying to get a big settlement

from the government;� and she was subjected to repeated unwelcome

telephone calls at her home by an aviation consultant contracted by the

agency.

The agency stated in its final decision that on February 9, 1995,

complainant previously filed a grievance alleging discrimination and

harassment concerning safety in her workplace since 1991, including the

December 1993 removal of her flight duty, and a proposed reassignment

to a position in Boise, Idaho. The agency stated that on September 20,

1995, complainant was notified that she would be removed from the agency

effective September 22, 1995. The agency indicated that on September

28, 1995, complainant filed an appeal to the MSPB with regard to the

alleged discriminatory removal, which was, subsequently, settled on

January 29, 1996. The MSPB settlement agreement provided, inter alia,

that complainant's removal/termination would be converted to a resignation

effective August 28, 1995. In her MSPB appeal, complainant also alleged

that she was discriminated against based on her sex when she was subjected

to a hostile work environment as the only female Airplane Pilot in her

office; and she was forced to go on sick leave because she suffered from

gastritis as a result of this hostile work environment.

Based on the foregoing, the agency dismissed the claims of harassment

and reprisal that were raised in complainant's grievance, including her

December 1993 removal from flight duty on large aircraft, for raising

the same matters in a negotiated grievance. The agency did not provide a

copy of an appropriate provision of the collective bargaining agreement

between the agency and its employees concerning their right to make

an election to pursue their discriminatory claim through a grievance

procedure or an EEO complaint procedure. The agency also dismissed the

alleged derogatory comments made during the March 13, 1995 grievance

meeting for failure to state a claim since they were made within the

context of a discussion to resolve a dispute between complainant and

the agency. The agency further stated that the entire complaint involved

the alleged hostile work environment, harassment, and leave, which were

raised in complainant's MSPB appeal. The agency indicated that these

claims were so inextricably intertwined with the removal action that

they were germane to the MSPB appeal. The agency determined that since

the MSPB appeal was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, these

claims were also resolved; thus, the entire complaint was dismissed for

raising the same matters in an appeal to the MSPB.

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

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)) provides that prior to a

request for a hearing in a case, the agency shall dismiss an entire

complaint that fails to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.103.

With regard to the March 13, 1995 comments, we find that they failed to

state a claim within the purview of the regulations. We note that these

comments were made during complainant's grievance meeting, and involved

actions inextricably intertwined with the processing and administration

of the grievance.

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

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(4)) provides that prior to a

request for a hearing in a case, the agency shall dismiss an entire

complaint where the complainant has raised the matter in a negotiated

grievance procedure that permits allegations of discrimination or in an

appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and � 1614.301 or � 1614.302

indicates that the complainant has elected to pursue the non-EEO process.

With regard to complainant's remaining claims concerning a hostile

work environment, harassment, and working conditions, including the

removal of flight duty in December 1993, we find that these actions

were inextricably intertwined with complainant's subsequent MSPB appeal.

The record indicates that in her MSPB appeal, complainant, when raising

the issue of her removal from employment, specifically alleged that

she was discriminated against based on her sex when she was subjected

to a hostile work environment, which forced her to go on sick leave.

The record also indicates that complainant's MSPB appeal was subsequently

resolved and complainant resigned effective August 28, 1995, pursuant to

the terms of the settlement agreement. Upon review, we find that since

complainant had a forum to raise the alleged discriminatory claims,

as described above, in her MSPB appeal, in the interests of judicial

economy, these claims should be dismissed. Accordingly, the agency's

final decision is hereby AFFIRMED.<3>

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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

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:

March 30, 2000

DATE

Carlton

M.

Hadden,

Acting

Director

Office of Federal Operations

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:

_______________ __________________________

Date Equal Employment Assistant

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 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.

2The agency was unable to supply a copy of a certified mail return receipt

or any other material capable of establishing the date complainant

received the agency's final decision. Accordingly, since the agency

has failed to fulfill its obligation to transmit its final decision by a

method enabling the agency to show the date of receipt, the Commission

presumes that complainant's appeal was filed within thirty (30) days

of receipt of the agency's final decision. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.402).

3In view of the affirmance of the dismissal of the December 1993 claim

for raising the matter in an appeal to MSPB, we need not address the

agency's alternative grounds for dismissal, i.e., for raising the matter

in a negotiated grievance.