01a44727
07-06-2005
Mostafa Eldakdoky, Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Mostafa Eldakdoky v. Department of Agriculture
01A44727
July 6, 2005
.
Mostafa Eldakdoky,
Complainant,
v.
Mike Johanns,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44727
Agency No. 010518
Hearing No. 100-A2-7923X
DECISION
Complainant, a Food Technologist, GS-13, filed a formal EEO complaint on
May 4, 2001, in which he claimed that the agency discriminated against
him on the bases of his national origin (Egyptian), sex (male) and in
reprisal for his previous EEO activity under Title VII when:<1>
1. Complainant was excluded from carrying out his role on a Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) detail to the Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS), occurring July 1999 through January 2001, and was subsequently
terminated from the detail in July 2001.
2. Complainant was excluded from managing a key high profile project
with the Egyptian government on or about September 25, 2000, which had
a negative effect on his being considered for employment opportunities
and promotions on or about January 2001.
3. Rumors were circulated to coworkers, making false allegations and
prejudicial remarks, starting in August 1998 to February 21, 2001.
4. Complainant was denied a promotion on or about September 2000, to
the position of Agricultural Research Advisor, GS-401-14.
5. Due to the discriminatory actions cited in claims 1-3, complainant
was not selected for the positions advertised under Vacancy Announcement
Numbers F1-FAS-125 (Agricultural Research Administrator, GS-401-14,
Research and Scientific Exchanges Division), F1-FAS-135 (International
Affairs Specialist, GS-131-13, Research and Scientific Exchanges
Division), F0-FAS-143 (Agricultural Research Manager, GS-401-14,
Binational Programs), and F1-FAS-010 (International Relations Advisor,
GS-131-13, International Affairs Division).
The agency investigated the complaint and thereafter referred the matter
to an Administrative Judge (AJ), pursuant to complainant's request for
a hearing. The agency subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the agency stated that complainant
had been detailed to the Foreign Agricultural Service to assist the
Egyptian government with a food safety project concerning the upgrading
of laboratories. With regard to claim (1), the agency stated that
the determination by the Foreign Agricultural Service to terminate
complainant's detail was not related to complainant, but rather
the Memorandum of Understanding between FAS and FSIS. According to
the agency, the FAS determinated that it was not receiving anything
beneficial from the agreement with FSIS. As for claim (2), the agency
stated that complainant was no longer allowed to manage the project with
the Egyptian government due to certain actions by complainant that were
inappropriate. The agency asserted that complainant met with various
Egyptian officials to discuss the food safety project while on annual
leave. The agency noted that complainant's comments were reported in
the newspaper and a great deal of problems ensued between the American
and Egyptian governments concerning the food safety project. The agency
stated that complainant was previously told not to arrange any meetings
with Egyptian officials without the explicit knowledge and consent of
the American Embassy in Egypt. According to the agency, the American
Ambassador to Egypt lost confidence in complainant's ability to function
in his position on the food safety project.
With respect to claim (3), the agency stated that complainant was
not specific as to who is responsible for the rumor concerning his
passport being taken away while he was in Egypt. The agency stated that
complainant did not provide any evidence to support his allegation.
As for the nonselections at issue in claims (4) and (5), the agency
stated that each of the selected candidates had broader and more
relevant experience than complainant and two of the selectees had a
Ph. D. The agency noted that complainant had a very narrow background
in food safety and lacked a Ph. D. With regard to complainant's claim
of reprisal, the agency asserted that none of the managers for FAS who
were involved with complainant were aware of any prior EEO activity.
The agency argued that complainant failed to show any causal connection
between his prior EEO activity and the alleged discrimination. The agency
also denied complainant's claim that he was harassed by the Agricultural
Attache. According to the agency, the Agricultural Attache did not
make any detrimental statements against Egyptians and has no animus
toward complainant. The agency argued that the Agricultural Attache
made no recommendation as to whether complainant should be permitted to
work on the project, head the ICD project, be promoted, or whether his
detail to FAS should continue.
Without holding a hearing, the AJ issued a decision dated March 31,
2004, granting the agency's Motion for Summary Judgment. On June 14,
2004, the agency issued a final action wherein it implemented the AJ's
decision finding no discrimination.
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency failed to include the
basis of religion when it consolidated his complaints. Complainant states
that he was advised in a final action issued on May 20, 2002, in another
complaint that he should contact the EEO Investigator if he wished to
add the basis of religion in the instant complaint. Complainant states
that the investigation in the instant matter was completed in December
2001, and therefore religion was not included as a basis. Complainant
also contends that the agency failed to accept for investigation two
nonselections that were in his original complaint, and that by the
time the agency amended his complaint, it no longer had jurisdiction
as the complaint had been forwarded to an EEOC AJ. Complainant further
contends with regard to one of the nonselections that was investigated
that the selection certificate was signed on December 15, 2000, three
days before interviews began and twelve days before the investigation
indicated that the selection was made.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the
summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment
is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive
legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists
no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of
the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.
Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case
can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case claiming
discrimination is a three-step process as set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973), and its progeny.
See Hochstadt v. Worcestor Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc.,
425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)
(applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation cases). For complainant to
prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination
by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at
802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden
then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is
pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133
(2000).
This order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step
normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case,
need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue,
the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the
McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions
were motivated by discrimination. United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900150 (June 28, 1990).
With respect to claims 1-5, we shall assume arguendo that complainant
set forth a prima facie case under the alleged bases. The agency stated
that complainant was terminated from his detail with FAS because FAS
determined it was not receiving anything beneficial from the Memorandum of
Understanding between it and FSIS. The Assistant Deputy Administrator
acknowledged that she could not say that the events of August 2000,
involving complainant's trip to Egypt had no effect on the decision not
to renew the Memorandum of Understanding. However, she stated that the
Memorandum of Understanding was due to expire and that there had been
discussions about ending the numerous details of FSIS employees for a
long time. The agency stated that complainant was no longer permitted
to manage the food safety project with the Egyptian government because
he ignored instructions and engaged in backchannel communications with
Egyptian officials. The agency added that complainant made comments that
were reported in the newspaper and problems subsequently developed between
the American and Egyptian governments concerning the food safety project.
As for the claim concerning rumors being spread about complainant, the
agency stated that it could not address this claim because complainant
was not specific as to who was responsible for the rumors.
With regard to complainant's nonselection for the position of Agricultural
Research Advisor, GS-401-14, Research and Scientific Exchanges Division,
the agency stated that the selectee was chosen based on her credentials,
interview performance and references. According to the agency,
the selectee has a Ph. D. from Cornell University in plant-related
biological sciences. The agency stated that the selectee has experience
negotiating science agreements within the United Nations' Committee on
Sustainable Development. The agency noted that the selectee's training
specifically related to sustainable food production and complainant's
training and expertise was related to food safety/inspection. With regard
to complainant's nonselection for the position of International Relations
Advisor, GS-131-13, International Affairs Division, the agency stated
that complainant was considered for the position and placed on the
noncompetitive certificate. The agency noted that complainant does not
speak Spanish and is not familiar with the organizations that would be
dealt with on the job. The agency stated that the selectee speaks Spanish
and knew the outside organizations involved in the position very well.
With regard to the position of Agricultural Research Administrator,
GS-401-14, Research and Scientific Exchanges Division, the agency
stated that the selectee had much broader experience, a strong research
background, prior work as a Desk Officer for the United States Agency
for International Development, and superior managerial and communication
skills, which it considered crucial for the position. As for the position
of International Affairs Specialist, GS-131-13, Research and Scientific
Exchanges Division, the agency stated that no interviews were held and
a review by a committee was made of the applications and credentials of
the candidates. According to the agency, complainant was not as strong
a candidate as the selectee due to his very narrow background in food
safety and his lack of a Ph. D. The agency noted that the selectee has
a Ph. D. in Bacteriology and has previously managed competitive research
grants programs. We find that the agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions in the alleged incidents.
With regard to the cancellation of his detail to FAS, complainant stated
in his opposition to the agency's Motion for Summary Judgment that
prior to the cancellation he had inadequate work to perform because
the Agricultural Attache was covering five Middle Eastern nations.
Complainant also disputed the agency's position that relevant agency
officials were unaware of his prior EEO activity. As for being excluded
from managing the food safety project, complainant claimed that the
Agricultural Attache in Egypt was against the food safety project despite
his statement during the investigation that he always was in favor of
the project. Complainant contended that the Agricultural Attache was
untruthful when he stated during the investigation that he recommended to
the Ambassador that complainant be given another chance on the project,
and also be permitted to attend the Codex meeting in January 2001.
Complainant noted that the Ambassador stated that upon recommendation
of the Agricultural Attache, he informed the Deputy Secretary of
Agriculture that he had lost confidence in him and did not want him
to come to Egypt to participate in the project. Complainant claimed
that the Agricultural Attache sought to assume control of his projects.
According to complainant, during a social gathering in Egypt, he told a
friend who works in the Egyptian government that the food safety project
would be pursued. Complainant stated that contrary to the Agricultural
Attache's statement, the ensuing newspaper article did not mention the
project budget. Complainant challenged the Agricultural Attache's
position that he did not utilize proper channels by noting that his
Supervisor rated him Exceeds Fully Successful on his performance element
for Foreign Outreach, the Deputy Secretary gave him a cash award for
outstanding effort in establishing cooperation between the American and
Egyptian governments in the areas of food safety and inspection, and
his Supervisor commented on his performance appraisal that he knows of
no other agency employee with his combination of technical, language and
cultural skills and enthusiasm and perseverance to carry the development
of a technical assistance program in food safety in the Middle East as
far as he has done.
With regard to being denied the position of Agricultural Research Manager,
GS-401-14, complainant stated that the selectee declined the position
and that the selecting official did not make any selection so that she
could avoid hiring him. As for the position of International Relations
Advisor, GS-131-13, complainant argued that perjury, preselection and
prejudice were involved in the selection process in light of the fact that
the selection certificate was signed prior to interviews taking place.
With respect to the position of Agricultural Research Administrator,
GS-401-14, complainant stated that the selectee had only three years
of experience monitoring organizations involved in international
agricultural research and nine years with the Peace Corps that was not
related to agricultural research. Complainant argued that he has 27
years of experience with planning, managing and evaluation of a wide
array of national and international agricultural development projects.
As for the position of International Affairs Specialist, GS-131-13,
complainant contended that the vacancy announcement did not require a
Ph. D. Complainant claimed that the selectee's Ph. D. in Bacteriology
has nothing to do with the International Affairs Specialist position.
Upon review of the record, we find that complainant has not established
that the agency's stated reasons for the alleged actions were pretext
intended to mask discriminatory intent. Complainant has not shown
that the termination of his detail to FAS was for any reason other
than FAS no longer believed it was a beneficial arrangement for it
under its Memorandum of Understanding with FSIS, that the Memorandum of
Understanding was due to expire, the difficulties related to complainant's
actions in Egypt in August 2000, and that FAS had been considering
ending the FSIS details for a long time. With regard to complainant
being excluded from managing the food safety project, we find that
complainant has not established that his backchannel communications with
Egyptian officials and the Ambassador's subsequent loss of confidence
in him were pretext intended to mask discriminatory intent. As for the
rumor allegedly spread that complainant's passport was taken away while
he was in Egypt, and that the Agricultural Attache made an allegation to
the Ambassador that he supported the food safety project, but complainant
did not, we find that complainant has not presented sufficient evidence
to establish that discrimination occurred.
With regard to not being selected for the position of Agricultural
Research Advisor, GS-401-14, complainant has not demonstrated that
the agency's stated reliance on the selectee's training related to
sustainable food production, interview performance, and Ph. D. in
plant-related biological sciences was pretext aimed at hiding
discriminatory intent. With respect to complainant's nonselection for
the position of International Relations Advisor, GS-131-13, we find
that complainant has not established that the agency's stated reliance
on the selectee's familiarity with relevant outside organizations and
ability to speak Spanish was pretext intended to mask discriminatory
motivation. As for complainant's claim that preselection occurred,
we find that even if preselection occurred, complainant has not shown
that any such preselection was motivated by a discriminatory animus.
See Goostree v. Tennessee, F.2d 854, 861 (6rh Cir. 1986).
With regard to the position of Agricultural Research Administrator,
GS-401-14, Research and Scientific Exchanges Division, complainant has
failed to establish that the agency's stated reliance on the selectee's
superior managerial and communication skills and strong research
background was pretext intended to mask discriminatory motivation.
As for the position of International Affairs Specialist, GS-1311-13,
we find that complainant has not demonstrated that the agency's stated
reliance on the selectee's prior management of competitive research grants
programs was pretext aimed at masking discriminatory intent. We have
given significant consideration to complainant's statement that he has
27 years of experience with planning, managing and evaluation of a wide
array of national and international agricultural development projects.
However, we find that complainant has not shown that his qualifications
for the positions at issue were so superior to those of the selectees
as to warrant a finding that the agency's stated reasons are pretextual.
See Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981).
As for complainant's claim of harassment by the Agricultural Attache
with regard to the aforementioned incidents where he was involved,
in particular the alleged false allegations and prejudicial remarks,
we note that a single incident or group of isolated incidents will not
be regarded as discriminatory harassment unless the conduct is severe.
Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1129, 1138-1139 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe to trigger a violation
of Title VII must be determined by looking at all the circumstances,
including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity,
whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere
offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an
employee's work performance. Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17
(1993). Upon review of the incidents, where the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged actions, we find
that complainant has failed to establish that such reasons were pretext
intended to mask discriminatory intent. As for the remaining alleged
actions by the Agricultural Attache, we find that complainant has not
established that such incidents occurred or that such incidents, even
if they did occur, were not of sufficient severity or pervasiveness to
constitute harassment. We find that complainant was not subjected to
harassment on the bases of his national origin, sex, or reprisal.
Complainant sought to include in his complaint two nonselections through
a Motion to Amend filed with the AJ. The positions at issue were
International Relation Advisor, GS-131-13, and International Research
Specialist, GS-301-13. We observe that the Motion to Amend was filed
after October 31, 2002, the final day that discovery was allowed.
The AJ's Acknowledgment Order stated that complainant may request
permission to amend the complaint from the AJ by filing a motion before
the close of discovery. In light of the fact the Motion to Amend was
filed after the completion of the discovery period, we shall not address
the merits of these nonselections.
We observe that an additional claim was accepted by the agency for
investigation on July 2, 2002, complainant's nonselection under Vacancy
Announcement F1-FAS-113 for the position of International Training
Specialist, GS-301-13. We note that this claim was investigated, yet
it was not addressed in the agency's Motion for Summary Judgment.
We therefore decline to assume that this claim was adjudicated by
the AJ when he issued his decision granting the agency's Motion for
Summary Judgment. Therefore, we shall remand this claim so that it can
be addressed through a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.
Finally, we note that complainant indicates that he wished to add
the basis of religion to his complaint. It appears that complainant
claimed discrimination on the basis of religion on the formal complaint
form dated May 4, 2001. However, complainant did not pursue the matter
of the religion basis being omitted from the notices of acceptance and
investigation until after the investigation was completed. The notices
of acceptance that complainant received specified that he should contact
the agency within seven days if he disagreed with how the issue was
identified. In light of complainant's delay in pursuing this issue,
we find that the basis of religion will not be addressed with regard to
the instant complaint.
The agency's final action is hereby VACATED with regard to the claim
concerning complainant's nonselection for the position of International
Training Specialist, GS-301-13, under Vacancy Announcement F1-FAS-113.
This claim is REMANDED for further processing pursuant to the Order below.
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the remaining portions
of the agency's final action finding no discrimination as a preponderance
of the record evidence does not establish that national origin, sex,
or reprisal discrimination occurred.
ORDER
The agency shall request that the Hearings Unit of the EEOC's Washington
Field Office schedule a hearing with regard to issue of complainant's
nonselection for the position of International Training Specialist,
GS-301-13, under Vacancy Announcement F1-FAS-113. The agency is directed
to submit a copy of the complaint file to the EEOC's Washington Field
Office within 15 calendar days of the date this decision becomes final
for a decision from an Administrative Judge in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �
1614.109. The agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance
Officer at the address set forth below that the complaint file has been
transmitted to the EEOC's Washington Field Office. After receiving a
decision from the EEOC Administrative Judge, the agency shall issue a
decision in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (T0900)
This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a
portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion
of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion
of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after
one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your
complaint with the agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until
such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.
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
July 6, 2005
__________________
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
______________________________
1Complainant also listed the basis of religion. However, the letter of
acceptance dated August 30, 2001, a revised letter of acceptance dated
September 28, 2001, and a revised letter of acceptance dated July 2, 2002
did not include the basis of religion. Two additional formal complaints
were filed in July 2001 and these complaints were consolidated with the
May 4, 2001 complaint under Agency No. 010518.