Susan Daly, Patricia A. McCance, Theresa Kirk, 05990106 Kathleen F. Wecht, 05990107, 05990105 Susan Manaseri, 05990109, 05990108 Lorraine Patigailo, 01963470 Complainantsv.Nos. 1-96-042A, 1-96-042 Rodney Slater, 1-96-042D Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 3, 2000
05990064_05990105 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 3, 2000)

05990064_05990105

04-03-2000

Susan Daly, Patricia A. McCance, Theresa Kirk, 05990106 Kathleen F. Wecht, 05990107, 05990105 Susan Manaseri, 05990109, 05990108 Lorraine Patigailo, 01963470 Complainants v. Nos. 1-96-042A, 1-96-042 Rodney Slater, 1-96-042D Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.


Susan Daly, )

Patricia A. McCance, )

Theresa Kirk, ) Request Nos. 05990064,

05990106

Kathleen F. Wecht, )

05990107, 05990105

Susan Manaseri, )

05990109, 05990108

Lorraine Patigailo, ) Appeal Nos. 01963551,

01963470

Complainants ) 01963496, 01963444

) 01963631, 01963433

v. ) Agency

Nos. 1-96-042A, 1-96-042

Rodney Slater, ) 1-96-042C,

1-96-042D

Secretary, ) 1-96-042E, 1-96-042F

Department of Transportation, )

Agency. )

)

GRANTING OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On October 19, 1998, the Department of Transportation (the agency)

initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

to reconsider the decisions in Susan Daly v. Department of Transportation,

EEOC Appeal No. 01963551 (September 17, 1998); Patricia A. McCance

v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01963470 (September

17, 1998); Theresa Kirk v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal

No. 01963496 (September 17, 1998); Kathleen F. Wecht v. Department of

Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01963444 (September 17, 1998); Susan

Manaseri v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01963631

(September 17, 1998); Lorraine Patigailo v. Department of Transportation,

EEOC Appeal No. 01963433 (September 17, 1998). The complaints are hereby

consolidated pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.606.<1>

In 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106(d), the regulations provide that the

Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission

decision where the party demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision

involved clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2)

the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices

or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). The agency's

request is granted.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. � 4703(a), the Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) was authorized by the U.S. Congress to conduct and

evaluate demonstration projects to experiment with new and different

personnel management concepts. In 1988, the agency approached the

OPM for authority to participate in a Pay Demonstration Project (PDP)

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. � 4703. The purpose of the proposed project was

to determine whether a financial incentive would allow the agency to

retain and recruit adequate numbers of qualified safety-critical staff

in its understaffed facilities. The PDP was approved for several agency

facilities and ran from June 1989 until June 1994.

After the PDP began in 1989, the female complainants herein and several

other women filed EEO complaints with the agency alleging that they were

discriminated against because clerical and administrative positions,

held mostly by women, were not included in the PDP. Some of the

complaints, including those of the complainants herein, were settled and

the complainants received amounts equal to 50 percent of the amounts to

which they would have been entitled had they participated in the PDP.

In the remaining complaints, a hearing was requested and held. The EEOC

administrative judge (AJ) issued a recommended decision finding no

discrimination. The complainants appealed this decision to the EEOC and

on December 12, 1996, the Commission issued its decision which found:

(1) that the Commission had jurisdiction to review the complainants'

claim because the Commission was not precluded from reviewing the

matter and determining whether the PDP was designed and implemented in a

nondiscriminatory manner; and (2) that the agency had not discriminated

on the basis of disparate treatment or disparate impact when it designed

and implemented the PDP in the manner that it did. See Louise E. Stiles

v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01945782 (December

12, 1996).

In 1994, when the PDP was about to expire, Congress included in the

Airport Improvement Program Temporary Extension Act of 1994, Pub. Public

Law 103-260, section 401, a provision entitled �Grandfather Provision

for FAA Demonstration Project� (the Grandfather Provision) in which

Congress specifically authorized payment retention allowances to those

employees covered by the PDP. The six complainants herein and several

other female employees again filed EEO complaints alleging that the

Grandfather Provision also discriminated against them on the basis

of sex. The previous decision concluded that the complainants were

alleging that the action complained of, the Grandfather Provision, had

a disparate impact on the wages of female employees and as such were

not simply generalized allegations as the agency contended. The previous

decision also rejected the agency's argument that the allegation had been

previously raised in the prior EEO complaints involving the original PDP

reasoning that the instant allegations concerned the Grandfather Provision

commencing in June 1994 and not the original PDP. In its request for

reconsideration, the agency argues that the complainants fail to state

a claim because the agency and the Commission are without jurisdiction

to review a Congressional Act or to afford relief to complainants in

the administrative process. The agency states that the complainants

may file suit in district court, which does have jurisdiction to review

their claim and to void the Act.

Initially, we find that it is questionable whether complainants have

standing herein to challenge their failure to receive monies under a

statutory provision such as the Grandfather Provision. See Stiles

v. Department of Transportation, supra. What is different here is

that under the Grandfather Provision, the agency had no discretion

in determining how the rule was applied. As the Commission observed

in Stiles, with the PDP, the agency was instrumental in designing the

project, particularly in determining which position classifications would

be covered by the PDP; this distinction guaranteed the complainants the

standing to challenge the project. In the instant case, the agency had

no legislative authority to enact the Grandfather Provision; rather,

it was passed on by Congress.

However, even assuming that the complainants had jurisdiction

to challenge their failure to receive monies under the Grandfather

Provision, we find that the agency properly dismissed the complaints.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(1) provides that an agency shall

dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that is pending before

or has been decided by the agency or the Commission. Here, complainants

indicated in the present formal EEO complaints that they wished to be

included in the PDP, only this time retroactive to the date of the

institution of the Grandfather Provision. The Grandfather Provision

contained no new substantive provisions but only provided for retention

allowances to those already covered by the project. The Commission finds

that complainants in effect raised the same question herein that they

raised in their previous EEO complaints, whether the PDP discriminated

against them on the basis of their sex. That question, as noted above,

was already decided by the Commission in Stiles.

Therefore, after a review of the agency's request for reconsideration,

the previous decisions and the entire record, the Commission finds that

the agency's request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b),

and it is the decision of the Commission to grant the agency's request.

The decisions of the Commission in Appeal Nos. 01963551; 01963470;

01963496; 01963444; 01963631; and, 01963433 are REVERSED and the decision

herein remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further

right of administrative appeal from the decision of the Commission on

this request for reconsideration.

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right

of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.

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

04-03-00

DATE Frances

M. Hart

Executive

Officer

Executive

Secretariat

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

DATE

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply

to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage of 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.