Prithvi C. Lall, Appellant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 14, 1999
01990237 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 1999)

01990237

09-14-1999

Prithvi C. Lall, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Prithvi C. Lall v. Department of the Navy

01990237

September 14, 1999

Prithvi C. Lall, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01990237

) Agency No. 98-00024-008

Richard J. Danzig, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On October 7, 1998, appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from

a final agency decision (FAD) dated August 12, 1998, pertaining to his

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. and

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29

U.S.C. �621 et seq.<1> In his complaint, appellant alleged that he was

subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (East Indian), color

(brown), national origin (India), and age (date of birth September 20,

1931) when on or about March 17, 1998, appellant's application for

the Patent Counsel position in the Office of Counsel, London, U.K.,

was rejected as being untimely.

The agency dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation

29 C.F.R. �1614.107(e), for being moot. Specifically, the agency found

that no one was hired under the vacancy announcement in question,

and appellant's application subsequently was entertained when the

position was re-advertised. The agency noted that in his formal

complaint, appellant stated that he would withdraw his complaint if

his application was entertained. Alternatively, the agency dismissed

appellant's complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a),

for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, appellant argues, through his attorney, that his complaint is

not moot. Appellant contends that the original vacancy announcement was

not canceled until six weeks after appellant filed the present complaint,

but admits that his application was considered under the re-advertisement

for the position. Further, appellant argues that the rejection of his

initial application clearly affected a term, condition, or privilege of

his employment.

In response, the agency argues that the only relief to which appellant

would be entitled, if his complaint was successful, would be to have his

application considered. Since appellant's application ultimately was

considered, the effects of the alleged discrimination were completely

and irrevocably eradicated. Further, the agency argues that there is no

likelihood that the incidents will recur, because the same officials that

rejected appellant's first application for untimeliness, later accepted

appellant's application under the re-advertisement. The agency also

notes that appellant never requested compensatory damages. Finally, the

agency contends that appellant has suffered no harm to his employment,

because no selection was made under the original vacancy announcement.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides, in relevant part, that

an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that fails to

state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved

employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been

discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,

sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �1614.103;

�1614.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long

defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss

with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994).

Generally, when an agency cancels a vacancy announcement without

making a selection, the complainant suffers no actionable harm

from not being selected. See Van Nest v. Department of the Army,

EEOC Request No. 05960752 (Nov. 20, 1998); Grace v. Department of the

Army, EEOC Request No. 05940969 (May 18, 1995). In the present case,

appellant has not alleged that the vacancy announcement was canceled

for a discriminatory motive. See Ladner v. Department of the Treasury,

EEOC Appeal No. 01975681 (Apr. 17, 1998) (allegation that announcement was

canceled in order to avoid giving complainant a position states a claim).

In fact, appellant admits that he was subsequently considered for the

position when the vacancy was re-advertised. Therefore, appellant failed

to state a claim.<2>

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

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.

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. 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 (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:

Sept. 14, 1999

__________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1The agency contends that appellant's appeal was untimely, and notes that

although appellant claims to have filed an appeal on September 8, 1998, he

did not submit his appeal to the Commission until October 7, 1998. However,

the agency was unable to supply a copy of a certified mail return receipt or

any other material capable of establishing the date appellant received the

agency's final decision. Accordingly, since the agency failed to submit

evidence of the date of receipt, the Commission presumes that appellant's

appeal was filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of the agency's final

decision. See, 29 C.F.R. �1614.402.

2Since we are affirming the agency's dismissal on the grounds of failure

to state a claim, we will not address the agency's alternative grounds

for dismissal, i.e., that appellant's complaint is moot.