01A11167
06-21-2001
Steven P. Sanders, Complainant, v. Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, Director, National Security Agency, Agency.
Steven P. Sanders v. National Security Agency
01A11167
06-21-01
.
Steven P. Sanders,
Complainant,
v.
Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden,
Director,
National Security Agency,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A11167
Agency No. 99-047
DISMISSAL
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from an October 31,
2000 final agency decision. The decision found that complainant had
not been discriminated against, on the basis of reprisal, when he was
allegedly harassed by representatives of the Travel and Security offices.
The record indicates that, in November 1997 and May 1999, complainant
filed Complaint Nos. 98-008 and 99-035, respectively. In Complaint
No. 98-008, complainant maintained that, because of his race (Caucasian),
sex (male), disability (panic attacks), and age (DOB: 3/17/56), he
was subjected to a hostile work environment by his Division Chief
and her associate when they attempted to coerce him into authorizing
illegal disbursements of travel funds and to defraud the government.
Complainant also alleged that his Division Director refused to release him
from his position to take another agency job. In Complaint No. 99-035,
complainant maintained that he was discriminated against because of his
race, color, sex, disability, age, and in retaliation for engaging in
protected EEO activity, with respect to various aspects of the agency's
processing of Complaint No. 98-008.
In February 1999, the agency issued a final decision which found no
discrimination with respect to Complaint No. 98-008. Complainant filed an
appeal with the Commission which was docketed as EEOC Appeal 01993144.
On July 14, 1999, the agency dismissed Complaint No. 99-035 on the
grounds that it was related to Complaint No. 98-008. On August 10,
1999, complainant submitted an appeal to the Commission. The appeal
was docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 01996256. By letter dated September
28, 2000, complainant notified the Commission that he was filing a
civil action, with the United States District Court for the District of
Baltimore, Maryland, concerning EEOC Appeal Nos. 01993144 and 01996256.
Both appeals were administratively closed by the Commission.
In his present appeal, complainant maintained that B-1, an attorney with
the agency's Office of General Counsel, sought to retaliate against him
for filing Complaint Nos. 98-008 and 99-035. Specifically, he accused B-1
of wrongfully initiating investigations by the Travel and Security offices
against him. In his civil action, Case No. MJG-00CV2937, complainant,
among other things, averred that the agency retaliated against him
after he engaged in protected EEO related activity. Specifically,
he indicated that B-1 harassed him by telling him that he violated the
agency's policies with respect to his transmittal of certain documents
to the Commission. According to complainant, B-1 was also concerned
about the content of these documents. Complainant also stated that
he received a letter from the agency indicating that the Offices of
Security and Policy had reviewed his appellate briefs, for EEOC Appeal
Nos. 01993144 and 01998256, and were concerned about their content.
The regulation found at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409 provides that the filing of a
civil action "shall terminate the Commission's processing of an appeal."
Dismissal is mandated under such circumstances in order to prevent a
complainant from simultaneously pursuing both administrative and judicial
remedies on the same matters, wasting resources, creating the potential
for inconsistent or conflicting decisions, and in order to grant due
deference to the authority of the federal district court. See Shapiro
v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05950740 (October 10, 1996);
Stromgren v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05891079
(May 7, 1990); Kotwitz v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05880114 (October
25, 1988). Here, we find that the matters at issue in complainant's
present complaint are identical to the issues raised in his civil action.
Accordingly, complainant's appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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 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 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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 (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
____06-21-01__________________________
Date