0120121315
06-21-2012
William L. Taylor, Complainant, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
William L. Taylor,
Complainant,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121315
Agency Nos. DJ-187-3-336, P-93-8258, P-99-0184, P-2001-0083 & BOP-2007-0226
DECISION
Complainant requests that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reopen Agency administrative complaint numbers P-88-7726; P-93-8258; P-99-0184; P-2001-0083; and BOP-2007-0226 which alleged unlawful 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, as applicable, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. Complainant filed a civil action which was dismissed in part for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and asks that his administrative complaints be reopened so he can exhaust his administrative remedies.1
BACKGROUND
At the time Complainant requested that his complaints be reopened, he was a retired Correctional Counselor from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California. In EEOC Appeal No. 01922215 (March 31, 1993)(on DJ-187-3-336), the Commission found that Complainant was discriminated against based on his race (Black) when in 1987 he was not assigned to a riot control squad which was sent to stop a riot. It ordered back pay with interest and benefits. In EEOC Appeal No. 01951319 (Nov. 14, 1995)(on P-93-8258), the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal for failure to timely initiate EEO counseling Complainant's allegation that he was discriminated against when the Agency failed to assist him in the recovery of his household goods after he moved in June 1989 from the Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California. For the same complaint the Agency accepted for investigation Complainant's allegation on not being selected for promotion for the position of Correctional Counselor under either vacancy announcements 92-LOS-50 or 93-LOS-04. In EEOC Appeal No. 01A33794 (Feb. 3, 2004), aff'd, EEOC Request No. 05A40494 (Mar. 17, 2004)(complaint P-99-0184) the Commission found that the Agency complied with a April 18, 2002, settlement agreement into which the parties entered. In EEOC Appeal No. 01A40283 (Jan. 24, 2005), aff'd, EEOC Request No. 05A50628 (Mar. 23, 2005)(on P-2001-0083) the Commission dismissed Complainant's appeal on the grounds that on June 17, 2004, he filed civil action No. 2:04-cv-04376) in the United States District Court for the California Central which encompassed the same matter. Complaint P-2001-0083 was filed in January 2001 and regarded a July 18, 1999 letter of reprimand. Complainant later filed a complaint dated March 6, 2007 (BOP-2007-0226) which the Agency defined as regarding a denial of requested work schedule on January 16, 2007. An EEOC Administrative Judge (EEOC hearing number 480-2008-00587X) dismissed this complaint on April 13, 2009, because Complainant expressed his desire to consolidate it with allegations pending in the above civil action.
Complainant filed the above civil action on June 17, 2004, which he amended in October 2004, March 2008, and October 2010. The District Court made a decision on January 28, 2005 which encompassed all the above cases except the 2007 complaint. The Court ruled that the April 18, 2002, settlement agreement contained a global resolution clause which incorporated and settled all of Complainant's claims against the Agency. The Court generally referred to all prior claims, and in the decision specifically discussed the Agency's alleged failure to comply with the order in EEOC Appeal No. 01922215; the moving allegation (complaint P-93-8258); a July 26, 1994 conditional settlement agreement of the promotion allegation (in complaint P-93-8258); and the complaint closed by the April 18, 2002 settlement agreement (P-99-0184). The Court found that because of the April 18, 2002 settlement agreement it did not have jurisdiction over these matters. It also found that it did not have jurisdiction over Complainant's claim that the Agency failed to comply with the order in EEOC Appeal No. 01922215 because he did not show he exhausted this administrative remedies on this, i.e., did not show he exhausted he administrative compliance process before the EEOC.
In its January 28, 2005, decision the District Court transferred Complainant's case to the United States Court of Claims. It reasoned that because all the above claims were incorporated into the April 18, 2002 settlement agreement and they had a value of more than $10,000, the United States Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, and hence the District Court did not have jurisdiction over enforcing or reopening the settlement agreement.
On March 14, 2008, the United States Court of Federal Claims made a decision finding that it only had jurisdiction to determine whether the Agency breached the April 18, 2002, settlement agreement. Finding that the Agency satisfied its contractual obligations, it granted the Agency's motion to dismiss on this specific matter. The Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over Complainant's equitable claim that the April 18, 2002 settlement agreement was void and should be rescinded and that his underlying claims should be revived. The Court found that to the extent the District Court made the finding that the Court of Claims had such jurisdiction, it was not in accord. With the exception of finding that assuming the April 18, 2002 settlement agreement was valid that it was not breached, the Court of Claims transferred Complainant's remaining claims back to District Court.
While Complainant's civil action was pending in District Court, on April 3, 2009, he filed a motion seeking to have the Court take jurisdiction over complaint BOP-2007-0226 (EEOC hearing number 480-2008-00587X). He alleged the Agency violated the Fourteenth Amendment. On May 26, 2009, the Court denied the motion, but granted Complainant leave to amend his complaint or file a supplemental pleading on the matter. On October 4, 2010, Complainant filed a "Second Amended Complaint." Therein he raised administrative complaint BOP-2007-0226, stated it alleged retaliation for EEO activity when the Agency denied his work schedule request, and alleged this violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. He also made other claims.
On December 3, 2010, the District Court dismissed Complainant's Second Amended Complaint. In the context of ruling on Complainant's Title VII claim of the 1987 issue and related 1993 order (EEOC Appeal No. 01922215), the Court found that it previously ruled on January 28, 2005, that all of Complainant's claims, including the one above, were incorporated into the 2002 settlement agreement, and this was the law of the case.2 The District Court ruled that accordingly, it did not have jurisdiction over the above Title VII cause of action. The Court found, in relevant part, that Complainant also set out a Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause cause of action and the United States was immune from such suit, and Title VII provided the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment. The Court found that Complainant did not allege facts showing he exhausted his administrative remedies, and hence it lacked jurisdiction over his claims of discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(3) provides that prior to a request for a hearing on a case, the agency shall dismiss an entire complaint that is the basis of a civil action that has been decided by a United States District Court in which the complainant is a party.
We find that such is the case for the matters covered in DJ-187-3-336 (which Complainant referred to as P-88-7726), P-93-8258, P-99-0184, and P-2001-0083. This includes the July 26, 1994 conditional settlement on the promotional allegation in complaint P-93-8258, and the issue of whether the Agency complied with the Commission's order in EEOC Appeal No. 01922215 on complaint DJ-187-3-336. The District Court found that all such matters were settled and closed by the April 18, 2002, settlement agreement. Hence, the District Court implicitly upheld the settlement agreement.
However, on the matter in complaint BOP-2007-0226 (EEOC hearing number 480-2008-00587X), the District Court found that Complainant did not allege facts showing he exhausted his administrative remedies, and hence it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The Court did not indicate whether it was dismissing this matter with or without prejudice. In Patel v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05920346 (May 12, 1992), the Commission reversed a final decision which dismissed a portion of an administrative complaint on the grounds that the complainant filed a civil action on the same matter. The Commission noted that the court granted the agency's motion to dismiss the civil action because the complainant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not waiting to file his civil action 180 calendar days after filing his administrative complaint. The Commission found that because the Court did not reach the merits of the case, there was no possibility of conflicting decisions, and to deny processing in the administrative forum would deny the complainant any forum for his complaint.
We find that Patel is applicable here. Accordingly, the Agency is directed to continue processing complaint BOP-2007-0226 (EEOC hearing number 480-2008-00587X) in accordance with the order below.
CONCLUSION
Complainant's appeal to reinstate complaint numbers DJ-187-3-336 (which Complainant referred to as P-88-7726), P-93-8258, P-99-0184, P-2001-0083 is hereby denied and dismissed. Any claims regarding the July 26, 1994 and April 18, 2002 settlement agreements are also closed. Complainant's appeal to reinstate complaint BOP-2007-0226 is granted. The Agency shall comply with the order below.
ORDER
The Agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC field office a request for a hearing on complaint BOP-2007-0226 within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, along with an explanation of the request by referring to this decision. The Agency is directed to submit a copy of the complaint file, hearings record in case 480-2008-00587X, and a copy of this decision to the EEOC Hearings Unit within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below that the above has been transmitted to the Hearings Unit. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall process the hearing request and issue a decision on the complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the Agency shall issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0610)
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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (M0610)
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), at 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 (T0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
June 21, 2012
__________________
Date
1 On appeal Complainant asked that the Commission reopen case number P-88-7726. In the civil action to which he refers he wrote that the Commission found discrimination in this complaint in EEOC Appeal No. 01922215. A review of EEOC Appeal No. 01922215 reveals that the complaint number was actually DJ-187-3-336.
2 We find that this does not include complaint BOP-2007-0226 because it arose after the January 28, 2005, District Court decision.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121315
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121315