Mostafa Eldakdoky, Complainant,v.Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 5, 2009
0120090553 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 5, 2009)

0120090553

02-05-2009

Mostafa Eldakdoky, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Mostafa Eldakdoky,

Complainant,

v.

Tom J. Vilsack,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120090553

Agency No. FSIS200601958

Hearing No. 570-2007-00490X

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

final decision dated September 25, 2008, 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.

The record reflects the following chronology of events. Complainant filed

a formal EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination

and harassment on the bases of race (Middle Eastern), national origin

(Egyptian), religion (Muslim) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO

activity.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a

hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested

a hearing.

An AJ was assigned to the complaint, and on June 12, 2007, the AJ issued

an "Acknowledgment and Order." Complainant states that on June 28,

2007, he sent a Discovery letter to the agency, to which the agency

has never replied. On August 1, 2007, the agency deposed complainant

concerning his complaint. On August 2, 2007, complainant submitted

a letter to the agency representative, with a copy to the AJ, stating

"Please take notice that I will be out of the country for Family Emergency

until September 25, 2007." In an Order dated August 10, 2007, the AJ

cancelled the hearing and remanded the complaint to the agency for a final

decision on the basis that "[c]omplainant did not give any details for

the undersigned administrative judge to make a finding that he stated

good cause to hold this hearing procedure in abeyance while he is out

of the country." The AJ noted that in the Acknowledgment and Order he

had stated that extensions of filing dates and postponements will not be

granted absent a prompt request in writing and a showing of good cause.

On September 27, 2007, complainant sent a request to the AJ to reconsider

his decision and continue with the hearing process. On September 28,

2007, complainant received a letter from the AJ which indicated that he

had received complainant's letter, however, he rejected the submission

because it was "deficient in the area(s) indicated." The AJ did not,

however, specify a deficiency.

In November 2007, prior to the agency issuing a final decision,

complainant filed an appeal with Commission from the AJ's August 10, 2007

Order, which was docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 0120080679. On September

25, 2008, the agency issued a final decision in the instant matter.

Therein, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint for untimely EEO

Counselor contact. In addition, the agency proceeded to address the

merits of complainant's complaint finding no discrimination. In October

2008, complainant filed an appeal with the Commission from the agency's

September 25, 2008 final decision, which was docketed as EEOC Appeal

No. 0120090553.

The Commission administratively closed EEOC Appeal No. 0120080679 by

letter dated December 31, 2008. Therein, the Commission stated that

"[t]he record...is being closed because this appeal was premature

when filed. Your new appeal, docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 0120090553,

is being processed by our office."

Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that the AJ improperly

cancelled the hearing and remanded the matter to the agency in his Order

dated August 10, 2007. The Commission notes initially that in his letter

to the AJ, complainant did not ask for an extension of any filing date

nor any form of postponement. He simply notified the agency and the

AJ of his whereabouts for the following several weeks. There is no

indication that complainant failed to comply with any specific Order of

the AJ just because he was going to be out of the country for a period

of time. There is no evidence that complainant failed to cooperate with

any discovery request by the agency. There is also no indication that

the AJ had scheduled a hearing and/or that when he submitted the letter in

August 2007, complainant was in effect advising the agency and the AJ that

he would not appear at any scheduled hearing or pre-hearing conference.1

Even assuming, however, that complainant's letter constituted a request

for a stay of the hearing, according to EEO MD-110, Chapter 7, Section

III(D)(16), "[a]n Administrative Judge may hold a hearing in abeyance in

the event that a party is unable to proceed with the hearing for reasons

such as illness, military assignment, or for other good cause shown."

In this case, the illness of a close family member was the reason that

complainant needed to be out of the country, however the AJ in this

case did not issue complainant (who was proceeding pro se in the instant

matter) a "Notice to Show Cause" why the hearing process should be held

in abeyance. Instead he immediately concluded that complainant's one

sentence explanation for leaving the country was inadequate, and he

cancelled the hearing process and remanded the complaint to the agency.

We find that the AJ abused his discretion by finding that under these

circumstances, complainant "has waived his request for hearing by failing

to timely prosecute his Complaint." We note additionally that although

the AJ correctly noted that "the administrative judge is required to

issue a decision upon this matter within 180 days of the receipt of the

Complaint file", the date of complainant's intended return to the United

States would only have been 105 days after the AJ issued his initial

Acknowledgment and Order.2

Accordingly, the agency's decision is VACATED and the complaint is

REMANDED for further processing in accordance with the Order below.

ORDER

The agency shall request that the Hearings Unit of the Washington Field

Office schedule a hearing. The agency is directed to submit a copy of the

complaint file to the EEOC District 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 District

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 (K1208)

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 77960, Washington,

DC 20013. 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 (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (R0408)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. 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 filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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 5, 2009

__________________

Date

1 There is no indication in the record why any outstanding discovery

(or Pre-hearing conference) could not be conducted via telephone,

facsimile, internet or other some other means while complainant was out

of the country. There is also no indication that if the AJ scheduled

a hearing, complainant would be unwilling or unable to travel back to

the United States in order to appear at the hearing itself.

2 Because we find that the AJ improperly remanded this matter to the

agency, we need not address the agency's September 25, 2008 final decision

dismissing complainant's complaint and in the alternative finding no

discrimination.

??

??

??

??

2

0120090553

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013