Wallace L. Hathorne, Complainant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 13, 2000
01991144 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 13, 2000)

01991144

03-13-2000

Wallace L. Hathorne, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Wallace L. Hathorne v. Department of the Army

01991144

March 13, 2000

Wallace L. Hathorne, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01991144

) Agency No. 9809I0180

Louis Caldera, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Army, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On November 19, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) received by him on

October 23, 1998, pertaining to his complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant

alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race

(African-American).

By notice dated October 1, 1998, the agency initially accepted the

complaint, defined as: complainant was told during the 1997 RIF that

his position in the Engineering Division (Bridge Inspection Program)

would be abolished; complainant learned on August 10, 1998, that a white

male was sent for training in bridge inspection work. On October 6,

1997, complainant asked that the claim be revised to read as follows:

complainant was told during the 1997 RIF that his position in the

Engineering Division (Bridge Inspection Program) was abolished;

complainant learned on August 10, 1998 that a white male was sent for

training in bridge inspection work.

On October 16, 1998, the agency dismissed the claim as revised for

untimely counselor contact. Specifically, the agency found that the

RIF was completed on October 18, 1997, but complainant did not contact

an EEO Counselor within the next forty-five days. Further, the agency

found that complainant's discovery of the training given to a white

engineer did not toll the time limits. The agency also found that

complainant failed to state a claim because he was not aggrieved by the

white worker's receipt of training.

Complainant's notice-of-right-to-file a complaint was dated August 10,

1998, and complainant filed his formal complaint on August 20, 1998.

Therein, complainant alleged that he was told during the 1997 RIF

that bridge inspection work would be performed by outside contractors,

but complainant then learned on August 10, 1998, that a white agency

employee received training to perform bridge inspections.

The record includes a letter dated August 20, 1998, noting that

complainant never received counseling for his complaint, and

instructing complainant to contact a counselor to discuss his complaint.

The Counselor's Report, dated September 18, 1998, lists complainant's

initial counselor contact as August 20, 1998. The report also notes that

at the time of the RIF, complainant believed that bridge inspection work

would be performed by outside contractors, but then claimed that he was

pushed-out to allow a white employee to perform the work when he learned

that the employee received training in bridge inspection after the RIF.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of

discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date of the

matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel

action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action.

The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed

to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45)

day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation

is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,

but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have

become apparent.

EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend

the time limits when the individual shows that he was not notified of the

time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know

and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or

personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented

by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within

the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency

or the Commission.

Initially, the Commission notes that the agency improperly analyzed

complainant's claim. Complainant has not raised two separate issues,

but rather one issue regarding the RIF. Complainant alleged that he

had no reasonable suspicion of discrimination until he learned that

other employees were being trained to perform bridge inspection

work. The Commission agrees. Accordingly, complainant did not

have a reasonable suspicion of discrimination until August 10, 1998.

Accordingly, complainant's counselor contact on the same day he suspected

discrimination was timely.

Volume 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

22, 1994).

Complainant clearly has stated a claim alleging harm to a term, condition,

or privilege of employment -- he lost his job due to a RIF. As noted

above, the realization that other employees were being trained to perform

his old position is not a separate claim, but rather is how complainant

gained a reasonable suspicion of discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's dismissal is REVERSED, and the claim is REMANDED

for further investigation.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claims as defined herein

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 an

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 (M1199)

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). 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R1199)

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:

March 13, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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 Equal Employment Assistant

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.