Pamela Alexander, Complainant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 17, 2000
05980788 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 17, 2000)

05980788

08-17-2000

Pamela Alexander, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Pamela Alexander v. Department of the Air Force

05980788

August 17, 2000

Pamela Alexander, )

Complainant, ) Request No. 05980788

) Appeal No. 01975380

v. ) Agency No. 4D1C97001

)

F. Whitten Peters, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Air Force, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

INTRODUCTION

On May 5, 1998, Pamela Alexander (complainant) timely initiated a

request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)

to reconsider the decision in Pamela Alexander v. Department of

the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01975380 (April 16, 1998).<1> EEOC

regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion,

reconsider any previous Commission decision. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659

(1999)(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)). The party requesting reconsideration must submit

written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more of

the following two criteria: the appellate decision involved a clearly

erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will

have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of

the agency. Id. For the reasons set forth herein, complainant's request

is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 1997, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging

discrimination based on race (African-American), color (Black), national

origin (African descent), sex (female) and reprisal (prior EEO activity).

In her complaint, she cited nine allegations to support her claim.

In its final decision, the agency dismissed, for varying reasons, six of

those allegations. Complainant appealed that decision. On appeal, our

previous decision reversed some of the agency's dismissals and affirmed

others. In this reconsideration request, complainant challenges that

part of our previous decision dealing with allegation (4) which found

that she failed to state a claim by alleging discrimination on the basis

of reprisal when her husband was issued a Letter of Counseling regarding

a conversation he had with complainant's supervisor about complainant's

employment and discrepancies in her training records.<2> Specifically,

this conversation, which took place on February 7, 1997, concerned a

matter that was raised before an EEO counselor on January 20, 1997.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The reprisal provisions of Title VII prohibit retaliation against someone

so closely related to or associated with the person exercising his or

her statutory rights that it would discourage or prevent the person

from pursuing those rights. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8-II, C.3

(May 20, 1998). For example, it would be unlawful for a respondent to

retaliate against an employee because his or her spouse, who is also an

employee, filed an EEO charge. Id. (citing EEOC v. Ohio Edison Co.,

7 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 1993) (agreeing that plaintiff's allegation

of reprisal for a relative's protected activities stated a claim under

Title VII); Thurman v. Robert Shaw Control Co., 869 F. Supp. 934, 941

(N.D. Ga. 1994) (holding that plaintiff could establish the first element

of a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that plaintiff's close

relative participated in the complaint process). Both spouses, in such

circumstances, could bring retaliation claims. Id.

In the present case, complainant alleged that she was the victim of

reprisal discrimination when her husband, also an employee of the

agency, received a letter of counseling for a conversation he had

with complainant's supervisor regarding complainant's employment and

discrepancies in her training records. Because complainant's spouse

is a person with whom she is closely related or associated, we find

that adverse actions taken against him allegedly in retaliation for

complainant's prior EEO activity provides her with an actionable reprisal

claim. Also, we note that the short period between the two incidents

(i.e., complainant's prior EEO activity and the disciplinary action

taken against her husband) provides the necessary nexus between the two.

CONCLUSION

After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the

previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that

complainant's request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and

it is the decision of the Commission to GRANT the complainant's request.

The Commission's decision with respect to allegation (4) in Appeal

No. 01975380 (April 16, 1998) is REVERSED. There is no further right

of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on a Request

to Reconsider.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following action:

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, the agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation

concerning complainant's assertion that during their first meeting after

complainant's January 20, 1997 contact with the EEO office, the agency's

EEO Counselor told complainant that she could not simultaneously

pursue her EEO complaint and her requested congressional investigation;

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall also conduct a supplemental investigation

to determine whether allegation (1) comprises part of a continuing

violation;

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, the agency shall issue a new decision accepting and/or dismissing

allegation (1); and

The agency shall process allegations (2), (3), and (4) accordance with

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall acknowledge

to the complainant that it has received the remanded claims within

thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.

The agency shall issue to complainant a copy of the investigative file

and also shall notify complainant of the appropriate rights within one

hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes

final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time.

If the complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the

agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt

of complainant's request.

A copy of the agency's new decision or notice of processing regarding

allegation (1), the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant,

and a copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice

of rights regarding allegations (2), (3), and (4) must be sent to the

Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1199)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659-60 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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)(Supp. V 1993). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0400)

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 (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:

August 17, 2000

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

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.

2We note that in her request for reconsideration, complainant also asks

the Commission to consider the issue of attorney's fees since, in our

previous decision, she prevailed on some of her allegations. We refuse

to consider attorney's fees at this time because our previous decision

concerned procedural issues and such an award, if any, is not appropriate

until a final decision is rendered on the merits of her claim.