) Petition No. 04980028

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 14, 2000
04980028 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 14, 2000)

04980028

01-14-2000

) Petition No. 04980028


Rashidah I. Hasan v. United States Information Agency

04980028

January 14, 2000

Rashidah I. Hasan, )

Petitioner, )

) Petition No. 04980028

v. ) Appeal No. 01956243

) Agency No. OCR-0863-47

Joseph D. Duffy, )

Director, )

United States Information Agency, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

On July 20, 1998, petitioner requested enforcement of the Order set forth

in Hasan v. United States Information Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 01956243

(October 16, 1997). Pursuant to that Order, the Commission directed

the agency to redress petitioner following a finding of discrimination.

The Commission accepts the petition pursuant to the provisions of 29

C.F.R. �1614.503.<1> For the reasons set forth below, the Commission

grants the petition.

BACKGROUND

At the time of the complaint, petitioner was employed by the agency as

a News Reporter, GS-11. Believing she was a victim of discrimination,

petitioner sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint

on March 8, 1993, alleging the following: (1) the agency informed her

that she must begin her employment as a News Assistant at the GS-4

level, and failed to consider her prior professional experience; (2)

the agency refused to allow her to retest for the New Writer position

and denied her coaching before her initial testing; (3) she was denied

the opportunity to test for the International Radio Broadcaster position;

(4) she was excluded from writing, training and travel assignments which

provided valuable experience and exposure; and (5) she was subjected

to offensive requests and racist comments. The agency issued a final

agency decision ("FAD") finding discrimination as to claims 2 and 4 but

finding no discrimination as to claims 1, 3 and 5. The agency agreed

to take the following corrective action: to change petitioner's entry

level from GS-04 to GS-07 effective March 2, 1992; to determine the

appropriate amount of backpay and other employment benefits; to take

appropriate action against the discriminating management officials; to

issue assignments in an equitable manner; to ensure against retaliation;

and to award attorney fees.

In the prior decision, we affirmed the FAD. We also affirmed the agency

ordered remedies, except where the agency found that petitioner failed

to substantiate her claim of compensatory damages, we ordered the agency

to conduct a supplementary investigation into the issue.

In her petition, petitioner contends that contrary to the prior Order,

the agency failed to: (1) permanently promote her to a GS-13 position;

(2) determine the correct amount of backpay; (3) make a determination

regarding compensatory damages;<2> (4) take appropriate action against

the discriminating management official; (5) prevent retaliation; and (6)

award attorney fees. The agency responds by stating that: it was only

required to promote petitioner to the GS-12 level; petitioner received

the appropriate sum of $23,261.69 in backpay; the responsible management

official was reassigned to a non-supervisory position in another office

and building; the petitioner failed to provide evidence to support

retaliation; and it paid attorney fees for the amount submitted in

petitioner's invoice dated June 12, 1995.<3>

ANALYSIS

The Commission's regulations provide that an aggrieved person may

petition the Commission for enforcement of a decision issued under

petitioner Commission's appellate jurisdiction. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a).

In the case herein, the Commission sought to make petitioner whole by

restoring her "to a position where [she] would have been were it not for

the unlawful discrimination." Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424

U.S. 747, 764(1976). At issue is whether the agency has fully complied

with the Commission's prior Order.

The prior Order required the agency to ultimately promote petitioner

to a GS-12 level position. At the time of the petition, petitioner

occupied a temporary GS-13 position. Prior to the temporary GS-13

position, petitioner occupied a GS-12 position. Since the agency was

only required to place petitioner in a GS-12 position, we find that the

agency complied with this portion of the prior Order.

In calculating the ordered backpay, the agency reviewed the information

in petitioner's Official Personnel Folder and determined petitioner was

entitled to $23,261.69 in backpay. Petitioner hired an expert witness,

who determined that the proper amount backpay ranged between $60,110.00

and $65,623.00. However, the expert based his estimate on inaccurate

information. The estimate assumed that petitioner's correct starting

grade was at the GS-09 level instead of the GS-07 level prescribed by

the prior Order. The estimate also consistently placed petitioner at

grade levels beyond that ordered. As a result, we find that petitioner's

position untenable and hold that the agency's payment of backpay in the

amount of $23,261.69 complied with the prior Order.

As for the agency's actions against the responsible management official

and the alleged retaliation, we find that the record does not support

either of petitioner's assertions. While petitioner appears disturbed by

the fact that the management official received a favorable reassignment,

we find that the prior Order did not state that the responsible management

official be placed in an unfavorable position. The prior Order directed

the agency to take appropriate action against this individual. We find

that by removing supervisory duties from the individual along with

reassigning him to another office in a different building, the agency

complied with the prior Order. We further find that petitioner failed

present credible evidence of retaliation. As a result, we find that

the agency has not violated this portion of the prior Order.

Finally, regarding attorney fees, petitioner asserts that the $3,637.50

awarded by the agency was deficient. We agree with the petitioner and

find that the agency should have paid attorney fees for time expended

by petitioner's attorney through the filing of the prior appeal.

The agency reasons that since petitioner did not prevail in her appeal,

she should not receive attorney fees for anytime beyond the issuance

of the agency's final decision on July 18, 1995. Additionally, the

agency states that while petitioner's attorney initially submitted

that his hour rate was $125.00, he now contends that his rate should be

$150.00 per hour. Petitioner's attorney provides that his $125.00 per

hour rate was his rate during settlement attempts, but since the case

did not settle, he requests his customary rate of $150.00 per hour.

We fail to understand petitioner's rationale for the change and find

no plausible reason for petitioner's attorney to change his quoted

rate during the case. As a result, we find that the agency's use of

$125.00 was proper in this matter. However, we also find that the agency

improperly limited petitioner's award to the time expended prior to her

appeal to the Commission. While the agency asserts that petitioner did

not prevail on appeal, we find that the prior decision modified the

agency's final decision and ordered the agency to conduct an inquiry

into the compensatory damages issue. The Order also expressly directed

the agency to pay the petitioner appropriate attorney fees as a result

of the appeal. Accordingly, we find that the agency has not complied

with this portion of the prior Order.

Based upon a review of the record, and for the reasons set forth herein,

the Commission finds that the agency has not complied fully with the

Order set forth in EEOC Appeal No. 01956243 (October 16, 1997). The

Commission therefore orders the agency to comply with the Order in

01951472 by taking the actions set forth in the Order below.

ORDER (C1092)

Within 30 days of the date this decision becomes final, we ORDER the

agency to pay petitioner's attorney fees for time expended pursuing

this case, including the filing of this petition. The agency is further

directed to submit a report of compliance, as provided in the statement

entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision." The report shall

include evidence that the ordered corrective actions have been taken.

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).

STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)

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 WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you

receive this decision. You should be aware, however, that courts in

some jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a

manner suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision. To ensure

that your civil action is considered timely, you are advised to file

it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this

decision or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period

in the jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

January 14, 2000

_______________ ___________________________________

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to petitioner, petitioner's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

1 On 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.

2 After petitioner filed this petition, she submitted to the agency

her evidence relating to compensatory damages. Based on the submitted

evidence, the agency awarded and petitioner accepted the sum of $8,000.00

in compensatory damages.

3 The agency asserts that this pre-appeal invoice best represents the

correct amount due in attorney fees because the Commission affirmed

the agency's final decision on appeal which means petitioner was not a

prevailing party on appeal and not entitled to additional attorneys fees.