01A23008_r
08-13-2002
Patrice M. Hernandez, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Patrice M. Hernandez v. Department of the Army
01A23008
August 13, 2002
.
Patrice M. Hernandez,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. White,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23008
Agency No. DON 02-68742-12
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure
to state a claim. In her complaint, complainant alleged that she was
subjected to discrimination on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal
for prior EEO activity when:
In September through October 2001, complainant received comments, among
others, such as "sit and look pretty" and "look good".
On February 8, 2002, complainant became aware she had been accused of
having an inappropriate, sexual affair with a Naval officer.
On February 28, 2002, complainant was informed she would be removed from
her position.
Before the Commission or the agency can consider whether the agency has
discriminated against complainant in violation of Title VII, it first
must determine whether complainant is an agency employee or applicant
for employment within the meaning of Section 717(a) of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(a).
Section 717(a) provides in relevant part that "[a]ll personnel actions
affecting employees or applicants for employment . . . in executive
agencies . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin." Thus, Section 717(a) expressly
prohibits discrimination by federal agencies against "employees" and
"applicants for employment." Section 717(a) does not expressly prohibit
discrimination by federal agencies against independent contractors.
Therefore,
complainant is protected from discrimination by the agency by Title VII
only if she may be deemed an employee of the agency or applicant for
employment with the agency.
The Commission has held that it will apply the common law of agency
test in order to determine whether the complainants should be deemed
to be �employees� under section 717 of Title VII. Specifically, the
Commission will look to the following non-exhaustive list of factors:
(1) the extent of the employer's right to control the means and manner of
the worker's performance; (2) the kind of occupation, with reference to
whether the work is usually done under the direction of a supervisor or
is done by a specialist without supervision; (3) the skill required in
the particular occupation; (4) whether the "employer" or the individual
furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (5) the length of time
the individual has worked; (6) the method of payment, whether by time or
by the job; (7) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated,
i.e., by one or both parties, with or without notice and explanation; (8)
whether annual leave is afforded; (9) whether the work is an integral part
of the business of the "employer"; (10) whether the worker accumulates
retirement benefits; (11) whether the "employer" pays social security
taxes; and (12) the intention of the parties. See Zheng v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962389 (June 1, 1998);
Ma v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962390
(June 1, 1998)(citing Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et. al. v. Darden,
503 U.S. 318, 323-24 (1992)).
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under the
EEOC regulations because complainant failed to show that she is either an
agency employee or an applicant for employment with the agency. As noted
by the agency, in complainant's response to the EEO Counselor's inquiry,
complainant states that she employed by ITS Corporation. She receives her
salary, annual/sick leave and retirement benefits from ITS. Moreover,
complainant's immediate supervisor is an ITS employee through whom
complainant sought and received a salary increase in January 2002.
Complainant also expects that her performance appraisal, had she received
one, would have come from her ITS-employed supervisor. Nothing in
the record indicates complainant is employed by the agency nor has
complainant applied for a position with the agency as a federal employee.
The agency's decision to dismiss complainant's complaint for failure to
state a claim was therefore proper.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's
complaint is AFFIRMED.
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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 13, 2002
__________________
Date