01A03852
08-23-2000
Rodney Raether, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Rodney Raether v. U.S. Department of the Navy
01A03852
August 23, 2000
.
Rodney Raether,
Complainant,
v.
Richard J. Danzig,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03852
Agency No. DON-FY00-69218-004
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision dated April 24, 2000, dismissing his complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The
Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37, 659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on December 9, 1999, indicating
that his Project Manager and Team Leader issued him a directive which
required him to submit all paperwork �going outside of the program� to
either of them for approval prior to being issued. Complainant contended
that none of his co-workers was subjected to the same requirement,
and that he was singled out for adverse treatment because of filing
EEO complaints against the agency.
When EEO counseling was unsuccessful in resolving his concerns,
complainant filed a formal complaint on February 17, 2000, claiming
discrimination based on reprisal regarding the directive at issue.
In a final decision dated April 24, 2000, the agency dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim. The agency found that complainant
failed to identify how he was aggrieved by the action, noting that he had
e-mailed the Project Manager that he had �no problem with the directions
given as long as associated responsibilities are conveyed and supported.�
On appeal, complainant argues that he was harmed by the directive because
of the extra burdens it places upon him in the performance of his duties.
He presents as an example an incident where he had to chose between
violating the directive at issue because both supervisors were absent,
or allowing a serious situation to develop by waiting for prior approval.
He argues that the condition was placed on him as a means for the Project
Manager to overly control and scrutinize his work, thereby placing his
performance at risk.
In response, the agency argues that the directive at issue was merely a
�request,� and that the e-mail from the Project Manager to complainant
outlining the specifics of the directive was no more than a typical
communication between an employee and a supervisor. The agency also
contends that the complainant failed to assert that �such responsibilities
were not conveyed or supported.�
The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter cited as 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. Department of the Air
Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
The only proper questions in determining whether a claim is within the
purview of the EEO process are (1) whether the complainant is an aggrieved
employee and (2) whether he has alleged employment discrimination
covered by the EEO statutes. An employee is "aggrieved" if he has
suffered direct and personal deprivation at the hands of the employer.
See Hobson v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05891133 (March
2, 1990). Here, complainant contends that he was the sole employee
who had received a directive requiring him to obtain prior review and
approval of paperwork going outside of the program, and that no other
co-workers were subjected to such scrutiny. Complainant's claim is
sufficient to render him an aggrieved employee. Because complainant has
alleged that the adverse action was based on reprisal, he has raised an
allegation within the purview of the EEOC regulations.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint,
and REMAND the case to the agency for action consistent with the Order
below.
ORDER (E0400)
The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims in accordance with
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656-7 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108). The agency shall acknowledge to
the complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty
(30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency
shall issue to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall
notify complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty
(150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the
matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant
requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a
final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
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 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 (R0400)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date
that you receive this decision. 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 (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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 23, 2000
__________________
Date
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 complainant, complainant'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.