0120180796
04-27-2018
Raquel T.,1 Complainant, v. Jeff B. Sessions, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Raquel T.,1
Complainant,
v.
Jeff B. Sessions,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Investigation),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120180796
Agency No. FBI201700248
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated November 22, 2017, dismissing her complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was a former employee of the Agency.
On June 17, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), age, and reprisal when: (1) between March and June 2017, Agency employees colluded with unidentified human sources (CHSs) "and used stolen access to a government computer program that is part of a satellite communication system" to hinder her ability to litigate her discrimination lawsuits; (2) FBI employees "interfered with [her] employment searches" and "[e]very job application and potential employer [she] met was spied upon by FBI agents"; (3) the former FBI Director failed to respond to a report (the Report) she sent him detailing the aforementioned interference; (4) the Supervisory Senior Resident Agent (SRRA) in Youngstown, Ohio, refused to refer the Report to either the former FBI director or the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Cleveland, Ohio Division; (5) the SRRA refused to accept her complaint that she is being targeted by CHSs who are illegally receiving funds for stalking activities; (6) the SAC did not respond to a letter that she sent to him in March 2017 asking to speak to him; and (7) non-FBI employees, including a federal magistrate, stole $22,000 from her Justice Federal Credit Union account.
The Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency noted the Complainant was neither an employee nor an applicant for employment. Nonetheless, it recognized she might have standing as a former employee. However, the Agency found claims 1 and 2 failed to state a claim because she could not tie it to a term or condition of employment, and that they were overly vague. As to claims 3-6, it found that Complainant did not allege a harm to a term or condition of employment. Finally, it noted that claim 7 involved a non-Agency employee - a federal magistrate.
The instant appeal followed. In her appeal, Complainant states, "failure to reinstate is a live issue," claiming the Agency denied her reinstatement more than seven years ago.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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, .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 (April 21, 1994). When the complainant does not allege he or she is aggrieved within the meaning of the regulations, the agency shall dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
Claims 1 and 2
We agree these claims are vague and do not state a claim. Complainant has not said who or when or exactly how these actions occurred. Moreover, she has not alleged sufficient facts to draw a connection between these alleged events and her former employment with the Agency. Finally, we note that Complainant raised similar claims in EEOC Appeal No. 0120162497 (November 15, 2016), where we also affirmed the Agency's dismissal of the complaint.
Claims 3-6
Again, we agree that Complainant has failed to state a claim with respect to these claims. They do not reflect any allegations of harm to a term or condition of employment.
Claim 7
Because this does not involve an Agency action or employee, but rather a federal magistrate, it does not state a claim.
In her appeal, Complainant raises the issue of her reinstatement. However, the matter has been adjudicated and no discrimination was found. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120133022 (July 7, 2015), we affirmed the finding of an EEOC Administrative Judge that Complainant was not discriminated against as alleged when the Agency refused to reinstate her and refused her request for an age waiver after she had withdrawn money from her retirement account.
In sum, we concur with the Agency that Complainant failed to allege sufficient facts, which if proven true and considered together, would establish that she suffered harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. The complaint, as written, without more, simply does not state a viable claim of discrimination or unlawful retaliation.
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
April 27, 2018
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120180796
4
0120180796