[Redacted], Lynne E., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 17, 2022Appeal No. 2022003875 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 17, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lynne E.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency. Appeal No. 2022003875 Agency No. DCAA-CASE-LM22-001 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's decision dated June 14, 2022, 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Auditor for the Agency at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth, Texas. On April 28, 2022, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of religion and perceived disability (communicable disease). The Agency, in its decision, framed the claims as follows: 1. On 03/02/2022, she was discriminated against in the screening testing guidance requirements section of the Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership Commanders of the Combatant Commands Defense Agency and DOD Field Activity Directors, for being submitted to testing for a perceived disability. 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. 2022003875 2 2. On 01/27/2022, she was discriminated against in the screening testing guidance requirements of the DCAA COVID-19 Testing Protocol, Rev 1, for being submitted to testing for a perceived disability. 3. On 11/22/2021, she was discriminated against in the screening testing guidance requirements of the DCAA COVID-19 Testing Protocol, for being submitted to testing for a perceived disability. 4. On 11/08/2021, she was discriminated against in DD Form 3177, Request for a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement, for having to disclose her sincerely held religious beliefs. The Agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). The Agency reasoned that, other than being informed of the now enjoined vaccination mandate and other matters related to COVID-19 protective measures, Complainant did not allege a harm to a term, condition, or privilege of employment of her employment. According to the Agency, Complainant had not been subjected to an adverse employment action but was simply informed on “what to expect when your local community levels are elevated.” Complainant filed the instant appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint 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, .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. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). In her formal complaint narrative, Complainant explains that she has been “treated as a second- class employee due to the policies that have been set forth by the Agency in regard to the religious exemption process and policies.” She maintains that, “the Agency policies apply to one class of people (unvaccinated) and not others (vaccinated employees).” The corrective action or remedy she requests includes the “removal of discriminatory policies that apply to one class of people (unvaccinated employees) and not others (vaccinated employees).” Further, she asks that the Agency “remove all discrimination including testing and masking for only those who have not been vaccinated,” and require “training regarding harassment and discrimination over vaccination status.” On appeal, Complainant asserts that, “[f]orcing me to participate in the discriminatory practice of testing one group (and not another) is a violation of my sincerely held religious beliefs.” Additionally, she argues that “the agency is assuming I have a perceived disability as I am being told to test to prove I do not have a communicable disease, which is a perceived disability.” 2022003875 3 While Complainant claims that she is being subjected to discrimination based on her religion and a perceived disability, a fair reading of her complaint reflects that Complainant believes that as an unvaccinated employee she is being treated differently than vaccinated employees. We conclude Complainant is alleging discrimination based on vaccination status rather than on a perceived disability or religion. Complainant’s vaccination status is not a basis protected by the statutes enforced by the EEOC. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(a). See also, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and Other EEO Laws, EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers - Updated on July 12, 2022, Question A.6 (if job-related and consistent with business necessity, employers can require mandatory COVID-19 viral testing to evaluate an employee’s continued presence in the workplace). Moreover, Complainant has not alleged that she was required to get vaccinated in violation of her religious beliefs. As such, we agree that Complainant has not alleged actions which render her “aggrieved” on a basis protected by the statutes enforced by the EEOC. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within 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). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, 2022003875 4 Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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. 2022003875 5 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 October 17, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation