Sharon K. Mitchell, Complainant,v.Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 22, 2000
05980675 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 22, 2000)

05980675

11-22-2000

Sharon K. Mitchell, Complainant, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Sharon K. Mitchell v. Department of Veterans Affairs

05980675

11-22-00

.

Sharon K. Mitchell,

Complainant,

v.

Hershel W. Gober,

Acting Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Request No. 05980675

Previous Request No. 05960656

Appeal No. 01961988

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The agency initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to reconsider the decision in Sharon K. Mitchell v.Hershel

W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request

No. 05960656 (January 5, 1998).<1> EEOC regulations provide that the

Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant a request

for reconsideration if the party making the request demonstrates that

the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of

material fact or law, or that the decision will have a substantial impact

on the policies, practices, and operations of the agency. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405(b).<2>

Complainant filed a series of complaints in which she set forth a claim

of ongoing harassment because of her gender and because she engaged

in prior protected activity. She identified and described well over

100 incidents that took place between January 1991 and January 1996.

In our previous decision, we first identified a time line over which

the incidents allegedly took place. We then divided that time line into

three phases: January 1991 through September 1, 1993; September 2, 1993

through December 1, 1993, and December 2, 1993 through January 1996.

Pursuant to this determination, we made the following findings:

That the agency properly dismissed that portion of the complaint covering

the incidents that occurred before September 2, 1993 which were not

discussed with an EEO counselor;

That the portion of the complaint comprising incidents that took place

between September 2 and December 1, 1993 stated a claim of discriminatory

harassment and reprisal; and

That the incidents that occurred between December 1, 1993, and January

1996 were sufficiently like or related to previously accepted incidents

in that they were indicative of on-going harassment, rather than new

and separate acts of discrimination.

Accordingly, we ordered the agency to investigate that portion of

complainant's complaint that covered incidents which took place on or

after September 2, 1993.

In its request for reconsideration, the agency first argues that the

matters raised in phase (2) of the complaint concerned actions by union

officials, not by the agency's management. We disagree. On page 5 of

the previous decision, we clearly stated:

�[Complainant] never alleged that she was being harassed because of

her position and duties as a union steward. Rather, [complainant]

alleged that, because of her sex and EEO representational activities,

various management officials harassed her and otherwise treated her more

harshly than they treated male union representatives.�

Contrary to what the agency contends in its request for reconsideration,

the previous decision did not order the agency to investigate incidents

regarding the conduct of union officials toward complainant.

Next, the agency appears to be arguing that the previous decision ordered

it to investigate incidents that had been raised in other complaints,

some of which may be pending before or have already been decided by

the Commission. We note that the agency uses the term �allegations�

in place of �incidents.� This language predates the implementation of

the Commission's revised complaint processing regulations, which became

effective in November 1999. The regulations were promulgated, in part,

to correct the problem of complaint fragmentation, which is clearly the

situation here.

When faced with complaints raising multiple incidents, the Commission has

made it clear that it will no longer regard each incident as a separate

allegation, as it had done in the past. In making its argument that

it cannot distinguish between allegations that should or should not be

processed, the agency fails to distinguish between the claim and the

factual evidence offered to support it. EEO Management Directive 110,

p. 5-5 (November 9, 1999). The agency must take care to avoid treating

each piece of evidence offered by complainant as a separate and distinct

allegation, i.e., legal claim. See id. at 5-6. By no means does our

previous order require the agency to re-investigate claims that it already

processed. Rather, it requires the agency, in investigating complainant's

current claim of harassment and reprisal, to treat any incidents that were

addressed in its processing of prior complaints as background evidence

insofar as they are probative of complainant's current harassment claim.

Ferguson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05970792 (March 30,

1999).

After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find that the agency's

request does not satisfy either criterion for reconsideration, and

accordingly, the request is denied. The decision of the Commission in

EEOC Request No. 05960656 remains the Commission's final decision.

The agency shall comply with our order in that decision, as modified

below, unless it has already done so. There is no further right of

administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request

for reconsideration.

ORDER (E0900)

Unless it has already done so, the agency is ordered to process

complainant's claim of discriminatory harassment and reprisal in

accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The investigation shall encompass

those incidents identified by complainant as having occurred between

September 2, 1993, and January 30, 1996. As to incidents that have

been cited as evidence in the agency's processing of other complaints,

the agency shall consider those incidents as background evidence to the

extent that they are probative of complainant's harassment and reprisal

claim in the instant complaint. The agency shall acknowledge to the

complainant that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30)

calendar days of the date that it receives this decision. 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 that it receives this decision,

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 (K0900)

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 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 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(R0900)

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

__11-22-00_______________

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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the present

appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the Commission's

website at www.eeoc.gov.

2We granted reconsideration rights due to the fact that the previous

decision addressed issues that were raised for the first time therein.