Wilburn E. Ray, Appellant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 5, 1999
01992347_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 5, 1999)

01992347_r

11-05-1999

Wilburn E. Ray, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Wilburn E. Ray, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01992347

) Agency No. 98-69232-011

Richard J. Danzig, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of

the agency concerning 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791 et seq. The final agency decision was

issued on December 21, 1998. The appeal was postmarked January 29, 1999.

Accordingly, the appeal is timely (see 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), and is

accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.<1>

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed

an allegation of appellant's complaint on the grounds of failure to

cooperate.

BACKGROUND

Appellant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on December 16, 1997.

On March 4, 1998, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint wherein he

alleged that he had been discriminated against on the bases of his race

(white), sex (male), and physical disability (back injury) when:

1. Management failed to accommodate him by providing him with an

appropriate permanent position following his on-the-job injury which

occurred in November 1995. Appellant claimed that the position he

accepted on March 2, 1998, Facilities Inspection Specialist (General)

(GS-1601-09) should have been offered at an earlier date, and the salary

and grade level should be higher.

2. Management failed to accommodate appellant by providing him with an

appropriate permanent position, when he was offered a Clerk (GS-303-03)

position in the Public Works Department on August 1, 1997.

3. Appellant has been subjected to a pattern of harassment and a

hostile work environment by the Superintendent of Public Works and

another employee in the Public Works Department, as well as personnel

in the Human Resources Department, since his participation in a criminal

investigation in 1990.

In support of his claim with regard to allegation 3, appellant, in

his informal complaint, referenced a letter dated August 19, 1997,

from the Department of Human Resources' Injury Compensation Program

Administrator to the Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP).

The letter contained a request that appellant's entitlement for

compensation due to work-related injuries be terminated for refusal

to accept suitable employment. Appellant stated that he was further

harassed when on November 10, 1997, he received an agency proposal to

demote him to the position of Clerk, GS-303-03, on the grounds that he

is unable to meet the physical requirements of his position.

In its final decision, the agency dismissed allegation 2 of appellant's

complaint on the grounds that appellant failed to contact an EEO Counselor

in a timely manner. Allegation 1 was accepted for investigation.

With regard to allegation 3, the agency determined that appellant had not

been sufficiently precise in describing the actions or practices that

form the basis of the allegation. According to the agency, appellant

failed to provide any specificity as to the dates of the incident(s),

a description of the incident(s), the names of the parties involved,

the identity of any witnesses, etc. The agency noted that appellant

failed to provide such information despite the EEO Counselor's request.

The agency formally requested that appellant provide this information

within fifteen days of his receipt of the final decision. The agency

stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of allegation 3.

On appeal, appellant contends that his complaint states a continuing

violation. Appellant also claims that he was not familiar with the EEO

process. According to appellant, agency EEO officials led him to believe

he could file a discrimination complaint at any time due to the continuing

nature of management's actions. Appellant argues that an agency official

in the Department of Human Resources and his superiors worked in concert

to deprive him of his Workers' Compensation and employment rights.

On April 22, 1999, the agency rescinded its final decision. In a new

final decision, the agency accepted allegation 2 for investigation.

The agency dismissed allegation 3 on the grounds that appellant failed

to cooperate. The agency determined that appellant failed to respond to

a request for more information. The agency noted that in its previous

decision, appellant was requested to provide information specifying

dates of alleged incident(s), a description of the alleged incident(s),

the names of the parties involved, the identity of witnesses, etc.

According to the agency, by letters dated January 13, 1999 and February

10, 1999, appellant sought extensions of the fifteen-calendar-day time

frame to provide such information. The agency stated that no such

information was subsequently provided.

In response to the instant appeal, the agency asserts that despite

appellant's claim of harassment, appellant has continually failed to

provide any specificity as to what other specific acts are involved.

The agency maintains that insufficient information exists to allow for

proper review of this allegation.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(g) provides that the agency shall

dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint where the agency has

provided the complainant with a written request to provide relevant

information or otherwise proceed with the complaint, and the complainant

has failed to respond to the request within 15 days of its receipt

or the complainant's response does not address the agency's request,

provided that the request included a notice of the proposed dismissal.

Instead of dismissing for failure to cooperate, the complaint may be

adjudicated if sufficient information for that purpose is available.

The Commission notes that an agency's decision to invoke the provisions

of 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(g) should be made by the agency only when there

is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the complainant.

Connolly v. Papachristid Shipping Ltd., et al., 504 F.2d 917 (5th

Cir. 1974). This is because implicit in the scheme of attempted control

of the evil of discrimination by administrative and judicial machinery

is a degree of cooperation by the complaining party. Jordan v. United

States, 522 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, the obligation

to informally and expeditiously resolve complaints is imposed on both

parties.

Based on the record herein, we find that the agency improperly dismissed

allegation 3 of appellant's complaint concerning appellant being subjected

to a pattern of harassment and a hostile work environment. Upon review of

the record, we observe that appellant identified the following incidents

of alleged harassment: appellant referenced a letter dated August 19,

1997, from the Department of Human Resources' Injury Compensation Program

Administrator to the Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP)

wherein it was requested that his entitlement for compensation due to

work-related injuries be terminated for refusal to accept suitable

employment; on November 10, 1997, he received an agency proposal

to demote him to the position of Clerk, GS-303-03, on the grounds

that he is unable to meet the physical requirements of his position;

and that an agency official in the Department of Human Resources and

his superiors worked in concert to deprive him of his OWCP rights.

These incidents appear to represent at least part of the claim set forth

in allegation 3. The Commission had held that, as a general rule, an

agency should not dismiss a complaint when it has sufficient information

on which to base an adjudication. See Ross v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC

Request No. 05900693 (August 17, 1990); Brinson v. U.S. Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05900193 (April 12, 1990). While appellant filed to

specifically respond to the agency's request, despite twice requesting

extensions to respond, we find that the record contains sufficient

information identifying the actions which appellant believes constituted

discriminatory harassment. Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss

allegation 3 on the grounds of failure to cooperate was improper and

is REVERSED. Allegation 3, as clarified herein, is hereby REMANDED for

further processing in accordance with the Order below.

ORDER (E1092)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded allegation (Allegation 3)

in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to

the appellant that it has received the remanded allegation (Allegation 3)

within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.

The agency shall issue to appellant a copy of the investigative file and

also shall notify appellant 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 appellant

requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a

final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of appellant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to appellant 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 (K0595)

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 appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503 (a). The appellant 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. �� 1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503 (g). Alternatively,

the appellant 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. �� 1614.408 and 1614.409. 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

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

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. It is the position of the Commission that 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. You should be aware, however, that courts in some

jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner

suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS from the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your

civil action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN

THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision

or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the

jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

November 5, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations1The record does not establish when

appellant received the final agency decision. Absent evidence to

the contrary, we find that the instant appeal was timely filed.