04a00005
09-18-2000
Pamela Bridges, Petitioner, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Pamela Bridges v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
04A00005
September 18, 2000
.
Pamela Bridges,
Petitioner,
v.
Hershel W. Gober,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Petition No. 04A00005
Appeal No. 01975529
Agency No. 95-2069
Hearing No. 360-96-8682X
DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On June 8, 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) docketed a petition for enforcement to examine the enforcement
of an Order set forth in Pamela Bridges v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Appeal No. 01975529 (December 22, 1998).<1> This petition for
enforcement is accepted by the Commission pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.503. Petitioner alleges that the agency failed to comply with
the Commission's Order by not including grade and step increases in its
computation of back pay.
In its prior Decision, the Commission affirmed the Administrative Judge's
finding that there was sufficient evidence that the agency discriminated
against petitioner when it failed to reinstate her. The Commission's
Order provided for the agency to determine the appropriate amount of back
pay, with interest, petitioner was entitled to. The Order also specified
that should petitioner be found fit for duty, the agency was ordered
to reinstate her to her previous position or an equivalent position
and should also conduct a supplemental investigation on the issue of
petitioner's entitlement to compensatory damages.<2> On October 26,
1999, petitioner submitted the petition for enforcement at issue.
In response to petitioner's petition regarding back pay, the agency
states that petitioner declined the agency's offer of reinstatement to
her previous position as a part-time Food Service Worker, WG-2, but found
a full-time GS-4 Medical Clerk position at a higher salary and benefits
with the agency in Georgia. As a result, the agency computed petitioner's
back pay for the period May 6, 1995 (the date after petitioner resigned
from the agency in Texas) through February 14, 1998 (the date she was
hired by the agency in Georgia). All interest and grade increases were
factored in to the back pay award as well as all applicable pay increases.
The net amount of back pay which petitioner was awarded was $29,075.05.
The agency has enclosed a spead sheet showing the total gross and net back
pay for the period of May 6, 1995 through February 14, 1998, as well as
the gross amount of interest petitioner was entitled to for these periods,
as proof that petitioner received the appropriate amount of back pay. The
agency stated that petitioner's back pay award calculation included
all applicable pay increases and any pay differentials attributable to
normal shift rotations she wold have earned. The agency stated that no
grade increases were included, as petitioner achieved the maximum step
level for her position, and that all applicable taxes were deducted from
the gross back pay. The agency also enclosed records of EEO training
for the selecting official and other management officials to address
their responsibilities with respect to eliminating discrimination in
the Federal workplace.
The documentation furnished by the agency indicates that as of February
9, 2000, complainant had received total compensation of $34,075.05,
including $20,516.62 for backpay, $3,559.43 for interest and $5,000.00
for compensatory damages. Complainant does not dispute that these
payments were made in a timely manner. After consideration of the
Commission's Order and the agency's submissions, we find that as the
agency included all applicable annual pay increases in calculating
petitioner's back pay award and as petitioner had achieved the maximum
step level for her position, the agency correctly calculated the amount
of back pay and interest to which petitioner was entitled. See, e.g.,
Bell v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Petition No. 04990022 (October
22, 1999). Accordingly, based on the agency actions as outlined above,
the Commission determines that the agency has complied with the Order set
forth in EEOC Appeal No. 01975529 (December 22, 1998), and the Petition
for Enforcement is therefore DENIED.
STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of
administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right
to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court. It
is the position of the Commission that 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.
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
September 18, 2000
__________________
Date
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 29 C.F.R Part 1614, where applicable,
in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may
also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2 The agency found in a decision dated August 25, 1999, that petitioner
was entitled to $5,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages.
The Commission notes that complainant has filed a separate appeal with
the Commission regarding the issue of compensatory damages and as such
this Decision will address only the issue of back pay.