0120070907edit
05-14-2009
Teresa E. Cowan, Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), Agency.
Teresa E. Cowan,
Complainant,
v.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Customs and Border Protection),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070907
Hearing No. 451-2006-00091X
Agency Nos. HS-05-CBP-002529 and CBP-05-164C/05-4149
DECISION
On November 30, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
alleging 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 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons,
the Commission MODIFIES the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked as
a Supervisory Customs and Border Protection Agent, GS-12, at the agency's
facility in Del Rio, Texas. The record reveals that complainant has
worked with the agency since 1972, became a GS-12 supervisory inspector
at Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas Airport in 1986, and has worked in Del Rio
since 1991.
Complainant applied for the position of Supervisory CBP Officer, GS-13,
after it was announced in November 2004. The agency determined that
complainant was qualified for the position and placed her and ten other
applicants on the "Best Qualified List" for the position. After reviewing
the application packages and receiving reference check forms from the
applicants' supervisors, the Port Inspector recommended a non-White
Hispanic male (S) who was almost eight years younger than complainant and
had no prior EEO activity for the position. The District Field Officer
for Laredo reviewed the application packages and also recommended S.
The selecting official relied upon the recommendation of the District
Field Officer and selected S for the position.
On July 15, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was
discriminated against on the bases of race (Hispanic), national origin
(Mexican) sex (female), age (over 40 years old), and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity under Title VII when:
1. On April 6, 2004, the agency failed to select complainant for the
position of Supervisory Inspector (Passenger Processing), GS-1890/1816-13,
advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number SOTEX/03-009DL;
2. On or about April 18, 2005, the agency failed to select complainant
for the position of Supervisory CBP Officer (Assistant Port Director
Trade Operations), GS-1895-13, advertised under Vacancy Announcement
Number CFCBP-2005-2089;
3. Complainant was subjected to harassment when on April 5, 2004,
complainant's supervisor humiliated her by correcting complainant in
the presence of a subordinate employee; on June 11, 2004, complainant
was told by a third party that her supervisor had laughed over her
nonselection for the position of Supervisory Inspector; on June 19,
2004, complainant was charged three and a half hours of Absent Without
Leave (AWOL), which was changed to annual leave on June 21, 2004,
after complainant filed an administrative grievance; in September 2004,
complainant's supervisor pointed her hair out to a coworker; on March 18,
2005, complainant was issued an email message advising her that she had
been seen out of uniform fifteen minutes prior to the end of her tour of
duty; on March 24, 2005, complainant was accused of using a government
printer to print correspondence from a bank; on March 31, 2005, after
buying a raffle ticket from a former employee, complainant was advised
that her purchase of the raffle ticket was considered gambling; on April
12, 2005, complainant was issued an e-mail message advising that she could
not engage in a health and fitness program of her own free will and was
directed to cease walking from/to the cargo area/administrative office;
on May 26, 2005, complainant's supervisor spoke to her in a demeaning
manner; on July 7, 2005, complainant's supervisor directed subordinate
employees to seize a car from a Mexican woman; and on July 12, 2005,
complainant was directed to issue a sick leave warning letter to a
subordinate employee; and,
4. The agency's EEO officials are intent on dissuading or squelching EEO
complaints; offer half-truths and incomplete information in bad faith
in order to appease or discourage complainants; fail to counsel on EEO
laws and guidelines, aside from sending the forms and advising to sign;
carry the complaint to the person being complained against which gives
that person an opportunity for creating plausible deniability.
In a letter dated November 12, 2005, the agency dismissed claims 1, 3,
and 4, and accepted claim 2 for investigation. Specifically, the agency
dismissed claim 1 on the basis that it states the same claim raised
by complainant in a previous informal complainant that was withdrawn
by complainant on June 17, 2004. The agency determined that although
complainant claimed that she would not have withdrawn her previous EEO
claim if she had known that the mediator was an employee of the agency,
complainant nonetheless voluntarily withdrew the complaint and was not
coerced or intimated into withdrawing it. The agency dismissed claim 3
on the basis that the alleged incidents fail to state a claim, and the
incidents are not severe or pervasive enough to constitute actionable
harassment. The agency dismissed claim 4 on the basis that it expresses
dissatisfaction with the processing of the instant complaint.
At the conclusion of the investigation of claim 2, complainant was
provided with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her
right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing, and the AJ held a hearing on
September 26, 2006. On October 3, 2006, the AJ issued a decision.
The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding
that complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to discrimination
as alleged.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, complainant contends that the agency improperly dismissed
claim 1 as a matter previously raised in an EEO complaint because she
would not have withdrawn her previous EEO complaint if she knew that
the mediator reported to the agency's Director of Field Operations.1
Additionally, complainant contends that the AJ erred when she found no
discrimination or reprisal with respect to claim 2. Complainant also
contends that the AJ erred in finding that claim 3 was not an actionable
harassment claim because these claims "raise a factual question as to
whether [complainant's] work environment was sufficiently severe or
pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her employment and create and
an abusive work environment." Complainant further contends that the AJ
"erred by denying her relevant and probative discovery that would have
substantially proven her retaliation complaint." Finally, complainant
contends that the AJ improperly dismissed or declined to adjudicate her
claim that the Port Director retaliated against her for EEO activity
when he failed to allow her official time to testify at a hearing,
although the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) determined that it
did not have jurisdiction over this matter. The agency requests that
we affirm its final order.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Claims 1, 3, and 4
The agency dismissed claim 1 on the basis that it stated the same
claim previously raised by complainant in a withdrawn EEO complaint.
Complainant contends that the agency improperly dismissed this matter
because the mediator involved in her previous complaint on the same
matter was an agency employee and therefore not a disinterested and
neutral party.2
The record reveals that complainant withdrew her complaint on June 17,
2004 by signing a withdrawal form. The withdrawal form that complainant
signed stated that she withdrew the claim because the parties had resolved
the matter and "neither the customs service, co-employees, or any other
person has threatened, attacked, intimidated, or inflicted bodily harm
upon [complainant], or threatened [complainant] with the loss of [her]
job as a result of filing this charge."
Although complainant contends that her withdrawal is invalid because an
agency official allegedly "implied" that she would be promoted to the
next vacant GS-13 position but the agency failed to promote her to this
position, complainant failed to provide any evidence that establishes
that the agency or mediator engaged in misrepresentation, fraud,
coercion, or deceit. In fact, on appeal complainant states that the
agency official merely stated that a new position would become available
in the future, and that as a result of the mediation, the official knew
about her qualifications and interests in the position, which is far from
a promise that complainant would be selected for the next GS-13 position.
Hence, we are persuaded that the agency official did not misrepresent that
complainant would receive the next GS-13 position in order to procure the
withdrawal of her previous complaint. If complainant wanted an assurance
that she would receive a GS-13 position, she was free to negotiate
with the agency for a settlement agreement that guaranteed her the next
GS-13 position. Moreover, we note that the counselor reported that at
the time of the mediation session, complainant expressed satisfaction
with the outcome and the mediator's competence. Thus, we find that
complainant knowingly and willingly withdrew her previous EEO complaint,
and the agency properly dismissed claim 1 on the grounds that it stated
the same claim complainant withdrew in her previous EEO complaint.
Claim 3 is a hostile work environment claim. A claim should not be
dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that
the complainant cannot prove a set of facts in support of the claim which
would entitle the complainant to relief. The trier of fact must consider
all of the alleged harassing incidents and remarks, and considering them
together in the light most favorable to the complainant, determine whether
they are sufficient to state a claim. Cobb v. Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997). Upon review, we find that
claim 3 states a claim of a hostile work environment. Accordingly,
the agency's dismissal of claim 3 is reversed, and claim 3 is hereby
remanded to the agency for further processing in accordance with this
decision and the Order below.
In claim 4, complainant alleged that EEO officials improperly discouraged
her from filing and pursuing her EEO complaints by providing incorrect or
incomplete information, failing to counsel on EEO laws and guidelines,
and sharing the details of complainant's complaints with responsible
management officials. According to the Commission's Management Directive,
a complainant dissatisfied with the processing of her complaint must
bring her allegation regarding the processing of her complaint to
the appropriate agency officials. See EEO Management Directive 110,
(MD-110) p. 5-25 (November 9, 1999); see also 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107
(a) (8). Therefore it was appropriate for the agency to dismiss
this claim. See Arline Carter v. Office of Personnel Management, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120071166 (June 18, 2007)(Commission affirmed dismissal
of claim expressing dissatisfaction with the processing of current EEO
complaint). However, the agency official responsible for the quality of
complaints processing must also add a detailed record of the complainant's
concerns and any actions the agency took to resolve the concerns, to
the complaint file maintained on the instant complaint. EEO MD-110,
at 5-26. If no action was taken, the file must contain an explanation
of the agency's reason(s) for not taking any action. Id. In light of
the facts presented in the instant case and our concern for the integrity
of the agency's EEO process, we order the agency to provide complainant
with a report of any actions it takes to resolve her concerns regarding
the processing of her complaints, or an explanation of its reason for not
taking action, in accordance with the order below. See Willand Losinger
v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070870 (September 26,
2007).
Denial of Official Time
On June 17, 2005, complainant filed an individual right of action (IRA)
appeal with the MSPB in which she alleged that she was retaliated against
for previous EEO activity when the Port Director failed to grant her
official time to testify during an arbitration hearing that involved
claims of unlawful discrimination. On December 12, 2005, the MSPB
dismissed complainant's claim on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction
over the matter because complainant did not allege that the denial of
official time was based on reprisal for whistleblowing. The Board's
decision did not give complainant appeal rights to the Commission.
In complainant's June 16, 2006 motion to adjudicate the dismissed claims,
complainant argued that this denial of official time claim should be
adjudicated as part of the instant complaint. The AJ denied complainant's
request to amend her complaint to include this claim on the basis that
complainant offered no reason for her failure to contact an EEO counselor
regarding this matter within 45 days of the denial of official time.
Upon review, we note that when the MSPB dismisses a mixed case appeal
for jurisdictional reasons, the agency must notify complainant of his
right to contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of receipt of such
notice and to file an EEO complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302(b). The date
on which a complainant filed the MSPB appeal is deemed to be the date
of initial contact with an EEO Counselor. Id.
In the instant matter, complainant's MSPB appeal, which was dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction, contained a discrimination claim regarding the
denial of official time to testify at a hearing regarding an EEO matter.
EEO Regulation 29 C.F.R. 1614.605(d) provides, in pertinent part, that
"[t]he complainant..., if employed by the agency and otherwise in a pay
status, shall be on official time, regardless of their tour of duty,
when their presence is authorized by the agency or the Commission during
the investigation, informal adjustment, or hearing on the complaint."
The Commission has stated that an allegation pertaining to the denial of
official time states a separately processable claim alleging a violation
of the Commission's regulations, without requiring a determination of
whether the action was motivated by discrimination. See Edwards v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 05960179 (December 23, 1996).
Essentially, the Commission has held that it has the authority to remedy
a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1614.605 without a finding of discrimination.
Id. The Commission held that such a claim should not be processed
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1614.108, since the focus is not on the
motivation, but rather the justification of why the complainant was
denied a reasonable amount of official time. Id.
According to the MSPB's decision, complainant filed her MSPB appeal on
June 17, 2005. Therefore, June 17, 2005 constitutes the date on which
complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact. We are unable to determine
from the record whether complainant was denied official time to attend
a hearing regarding an EEO matter. Thus, we order the agency to conduct
a supplemental investigation with respect to this matter in accordance
with the order below.
Discovery
Complainant contends that the AJ improperly denied her motion to compel
the agency to produce requested documents. The record reveals that
complainant submitted a "Motion for Leave to Compel and Motion to Compel
Answers to Complainant's First Request for Production of Documents."
On August 14, 2006, the AJ denied complainant's motion on the basis
that complainant's attorney had not made a good faith effort to resolve
the discovery dispute as required by the AJ's acknowledgment and order.
On August 25, 2006, complainant filed a motion to reconsider the AJ's
denial of her motion, to which the agency responded on August 31, 2006.
On September 13, 2006, the AJ issued an Order on Complainant's Verified
Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Compel and Motion for a
Pre-hearing Conference. In that order, the AJ denied complainant's
request to compel the agency's production of 14 documents, and ordered
the agency to produce one document. The AJ specifically addressed the
reasoning for denying each requested document in depth.3 Upon review
of this matter, we note that an AJ has broad discretion in the conduct
of a hearing, including matters such as discovery orders, scheduling,
admission/exclusion of evidence, and witness selection. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.109(c). Based on our review of the record, we find no persuasive
evidence of harmful error or that the AJ abused her discretion in ruling
on the discovery requests.
Claim 2
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant must
satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant
must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will
vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately
prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Assuming arguendo that complainant established a prima facie case of
reprisal and discrimination for claim 2, we nonetheless find that
the agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
not selecting complainant for the Supervisory CBP Officer position.
Specifically, management testified that the selectee was chosen for the
position because the selectee had been Inspector of the Year in 1991,
1992, 1996, and 1997; received prestigious Supervisor of the Quarter
awards; received the Director's Certificate of Award in 1991, 1992, and
1993; received 42 letters of commendation; excelled in the projects he was
given; received 20 cash awards; trained supervisors; and was "well-liked"
by co-workers. Recommending and selecting officials further stated that
complainant was not selected because she was incapable or unwilling to
make decisions; struggled with multitasking; and, displayed an inability
to get along with co-workers. Two supervisors who provided references
for complainant testified that they gave complainant negative references
for the position because complainant "makes trouble" by relying on "idle
gossip," was named as the responsible official in an EEO claim, asked
questions about simple immigration issues, and did not make decisions
in an effective manner.
Complainant contended that she should have been selected because she had
17 years more experience with the agency than the selectee, had more
experience in cargo and trade, supervised a major airport facility,
and spoke Spanish. However, length of service with the agency is
not necessarily the determinative factor in a selection, and the
selectee had more than 13 years with the agency. Further, while having
experience in cargo and trade was an asset for the position, this was
a management position that demanded demonstrated leadership skills.
Thus, we find that management's focus on the applicants' interpersonal
skills and relationship with employees to be reasonable in this case
and not pretextual. Complainant has not provided any evidence that
proves that she was observably superior to the selectee, nor otherwise
shown that the agency's articulated reasons were pretext for unlawful
discrimination or reprisal. See Williams v. Department of Education, EEOC
Request No. 05970561 (August 6, 1998). Thus, we find that substantial
evidence supports the AJ's finding of no discrimination or reprisal for
claim 2.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the final order with respect
to claims 1, 2 and 4 to the extent detailed herein. The Commission
REVERSES the agency's dismissal of claim 3 and REMANDS this and other
matters specified herein for further processing in accordance with this
decision and the Order below.
ORDER
The agency shall undertake the following actions:
1. The agency is ordered to process the remanded claim 3 in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant
that it has received claim 3 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 on claim 3, the agency shall issue a final decision within sixty
(60) days of receipt of complainant's request.
2. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, the agency official responsible for the quality of complaints
processing must add a record of the complainant's concerns, and any
actions the agency took to resolve the concerns, to the complaint file
maintained on the underlying complaint. Moreover, the agency shall provide
complainant with a report of any actions taken by the agency to resolve
the concerns, or an explanation of its reason for not taking action.
3. The agency is ordered to investigate the issue of whether complainant
was denied official time to attend a hearing related to an EEO matter. In
the investigative record, the agency shall include documentation
indicating whether complainant was granted official time to attend the
hearing. If complainant was denied official time, the agency shall provide
justification for the denial. The agency must also provide complainant
an opportunity to place into the record any evidence supporting his
claim that he was denied official time. Within sixty (60) days from the
date this decision becomes final, the agency shall issue a decision as
to whether or not complainant was properly denied official time. The
agency's decision shall provide appeal rights to the Commission.
A copy of the agency's decision with notice of rights must be sent to
the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0408)
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)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 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.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (T0408)
This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a
portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion
of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion
of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until
such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
_May 14, 2009_________________
Date
1 Complainant maintains that she agreed to withdraw her previous complaint
after receiving the Director of Field Operation's assurances that a new
position would become available, and that because of the mediation,
he knew about complainant's qualifications and interests for future
positions.
2 We note that while the agency should ensure that mediators are
neutral and disinterested in the outcome of EEO claims, the Commission's
Management Directive states: "[a]n agency's decision not to make ADR
available for a particular case, or an agency failure to provide a
neutral, cannot be made the subject of an EEO complaint." See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614
(EEO MD-110) 3-4 (November 9, 1999).
3 The AJ denied complainant's requests to produce documents on the bases
that complainant failed to prove the requested documents' relevance to
her claims; no written record was available for one requested document;
and, complainant's requests were overbroad.
??
??
??
??
2
0120070907
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
11
0120070907
12
0120070907