01991720
07-21-2000
Patricia L. Stackler, Complainants, v. Daniel Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Patricia L. Stackler v. Department of Agriculture
01991720
July 21, 2000
Patricia L. Stackler, )
Complainants, )
) Appeal No. 01991720
v. ) Agency No. 870807
)
Daniel Glickman, )
Secretary, )
Department of Agriculture, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Complainant initiated an appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the Commission) from a final decision of the agency
concerning her claim for relief as a class member of the class certified
in Byrd v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Hearing No. 250-90-8171X,
according to the terms of an October 10, 1993 settlement agreement
between the class representative and the agency.<1> The Commission
finds the appeal timely (see 29 C.F.R. �1614.402)a)), and accepts it in
accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29
C.F.R. �1614.405).<2>
On July 7, 1997, the Commission issued a decision in Mitchell, et
al. v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01960816, et al.
In that decision, the Commission briefly noted the history of the Byrd
litigation and more fully discussed the settlement agreement between the
class and the agency that resolved the liability portion of the matter.
The decision further addressed in detail the burdens of proof applicable
in the remedy phase of a class action where the parties incorporated
Commission regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.204(l)(3) into their settlement
agreement. The Commission finds that the decision in Mitchell is
applicable to this case and we incorporate by reference that decision
herein.
The settlement agreement required the Office of Personnel Management,
which was a party to the underlying Byrd action, to revise the individual
qualification standard applicable to positions in the Agriculture
Management Series, GS-475. Prior to the revisions, candidates for
GS-475 positions had to meet strict educational requirements. Under the
revised qualification standard, a candidate may qualify by meeting
an educational requirement, by meeting an experience requirement, or
through a combination of education and experience. The qualification
standard sets forth the general and specific experience requirements
candidates for GS-475 positions must possess. It also lists the courses
a candidate must have taken in order to meet the educational requirement
for consideration for a GS-475 position.
Complainant began working for the agency as a County Office Clerk,
GS-322-3, in August 1987. She became a Secretary, GS-318-5, in
February 1990, a position she held until being selected for an Operations
Technician, GS-303-7, position in January 1993. Complainant was promoted
to the position of Operations Specialist, GS-301-9, in November 1995.
Complainant had also owned and operated a 25 acre farm since 1976.
Complainant completed various agency training courses, as well as three
college-level courses. Complainant stated that she qualified for a GS-475
position in August 1988, based upon her experience. Complainant listed
four positions, including two GS-9/11 County Supervisor and one GS-7/9/11
Agriculture Management Specialist positions, for which she would have
applied.<3>
In its final decision, the agency found that complainant met the
new GS-475 qualification standard based upon her experience owning
and operating a farm. Further, the agency found that, based upon her
experience, she was more qualified than the individual selected for an
Assistant County Supervisor, GS-475-5, position in Dover, Delaware, in
December 1988. Thus, the agency determined that complainant should be
retroactively placed into the position, effective December 18, 1988,
and given backpay and benefits, including career ladder promotions
and within grade increases. With regard to the remaining positions,
the agency noted that the GS-7/9/11 Agriculture Management Specialist
position was not filled, and that complainant did not meet the experience
requirements, even with the retroactive award of the Assistant County
Supervisor position, for the County Supervisor positions cited.
The Commission agrees with the agency that complainant was not qualified
for the two GS-475-9/11 County Supervisor positions she identified
in her claim. Specifically, complainant's retroactive promotion to
the Assistant County Supervisor, GS-475-5, position in December 1988,
would not provide complainant with the requisite experience for a GS-9
level position by July 1989, that is, the time the County Supervisor
positions cited were filled. Thus, we find that the agency properly
denied complainant's claim with regard to the County Supervisor and
Agriculture Management Specialist, GS-7/9/11, positions.
CONCLUSION
Based upon a review of the record herein, it is the decision of the
Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision in this matter.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
__07-21-00_______ __________________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify
that the decision was mailed to claimant, claimant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_________________________ __________________________
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 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.
2The agency failed to submit a postal return receipt or other evidence
that would show when complainant received the final agency decision;
accordingly, the appeal is deemed to be timely.
3While complainant also stated that she would have applied for various
positions in the GS-303, GS-1101, GS-1165, and GS-203 series, those
positions, which were not subject to the old positive education
requirement, are outside the scope of the underlying settlement
agreement.