04990021
07-26-2000
Willie M. Miller, Appellant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury agency, ______________________________)
Willie M. Miller v. Department of the Treasury
04990021
July 26, 2000
Willie M. Miller, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Petition No. 04990021
) Request No. 05980345
)
)
Lawrence H. Summers, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Treasury )
agency, )
)
______________________________)
DECISION FOR PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has docketed a
petition for enforcement from Willie M. Miller (petitioner) requesting
enforcement of the Commission Orders in Miller v. Dept. of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05980345 (July 20, 1998). This petition is accepted
in accordance with the provisions of EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.503.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the agency has complied with the
Commission's orders in EEOC Request No. 05980345.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination based on race
when: (1) on February 22, 1993, petitioner was canceled from the IMFNR(U)
training class he was scheduled to attend from February 22, 1993 until
March 12, 1993; (2) petitioner was released from pay status on May 13,
1992 while a White employee was retained in pay status; (3) since March
1990, petitioner's work was subjected to weekly case reviews; and, (4)
appellant's annual evaluation date was extended from February to May
1993. Following an investigation of his complaint, petitioner requested
an EEOC hearing before an administrative judge (AJ). At the start of
the hearing on January 11, 1995, the AJ indicated that the agency had
offered petitioner full relief with regard to issues (1), (3), and (4).
The agency then drafted an offer of full relief which was agreed to
by petitioner. Petitioner withdrew his request for a hearing on the
remaining issue and the case was forwarded to the agency for issuance
of a final agency decision (FAD). On March 2, 1995, the agency issued a
final agency decision (FAD 1), dismissing three issues as moot pursuant
to the AJ's recommendation and finding no discrimination on the remaining
issue. On March 22, 1995, petitioner alleged that the agency had not acted
in accordance with its offer of full relief when it removed him from the
scheduled IMF class. By decision dated March 31, 1995 (FAD 2), the agency
found that it had provided full relief in accordance with its offer.
On August 6, 1995, petitioner filed with the Commission an appeal of
FAD 1 on April 6, 1995. Petitioner subsequently also filed an appeal
of the March 31 FAD which was erroneously closed by the Commission. On
January 7, 1998, the Commission issued a decision (Appeal No. 01953518)
addressing both appeals. The Commission reversed the agency's finding
of no discrimination on Issue 2, and found that issues 1 and 4 were not
moot since there was some dispute as the whether petitioner had in fact
received the training pursuant to the full relief offer. The Commission
ordered the following actions: (1) no later than sixty (60) days after
the Commission's decision became final, provide petitioner with backpay
and all benefits to which he would ordinarily be entitled had he not been
placed in a nonpay status from May 14, 1992 until January 20, 1993; (2)
conduct a supplemental investigation pertaining to the remanded issues,
in particular whether the agency was in compliance with its offer of full
relief; (3) pay attorney�s fees as appropriate; and, (4) post a notice
of the finding of discrimination. The agency subsequently requested
reconsideration of the Commission's decision, which was granted in a
decision dated July 20, 1998 (Request No. 05980345). In that decision,
the Commission modified the dates to be used for calculating the back pay
award to reflect the dates of May 14, 1992 until October 24, 1992. The
remainder of the previous decision was left in effect and the case was
remanded to the agency for compliance with that decision.
By letter to the Commission dated November 18, 1998, petitioner filed the
�Petition for Enforcement� herein (the Petition) of 05980345. Petitioner
alleged that: (1) he had not received appropriate amounts of back pay
and interest due, plus attorney's fees; (2) the agency had not conducted
a supplemental investigation with respect to the remanded issues; (3) the
agency had not supplied evidence proving that petitioner was provided with
the applicable training or was provided with a satisfactory explanation
with supporting evidence as to why the training was not provided; and, (4)
the agency continued to commit retaliatory acts against petitioner.
By letter dated March 4, 1999, the agency advised the Commission that
it was in full compliance with the orders in 05980345. Specifically,
the agency stated that: (1) petitioner was provided with an explanation
of the back pay calculation on December 30, 1998 and that he has not
disputed this amount; (2) on February 2, 1999, petitioner's attorney
received attorney's fees in the amount of $500.00 which was the full
amount requested; (3) a supplemental investigation on the remanded
issue and the offer of full relief was conducted in December 1998 and
January 1999, and a new final agency decision, with appeal rights to
the Commission, was issued on March 2, 1999. Commission records show
that petitioner appealed this decision to the Commission on April 5,
1999. The agency provided documentation of a backpay award of $15,568.12
and documentation that petitioner's attorney had received the requested
amount of attorney's fees, $500.00. The agency also provided a copy
of the March 2, 1999 final decision addressing the remanded issues and
the results of the supplemental investigation. Finally, the agency
provided documentation showing that the notice was posted as directed on
August 26, 1998. The Commission has received no further correspondence
from petitioner. Records also reveal that by letter dated February 3,
1999, the agency was notified by its Chief Counsel, Midstates Region,
that petitioner had been provided with the method of calculation for
the back pay award and that he was satisfied with that calculation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Commission regulations provide that a complainant, petitioner
herein, may petition the Commission for enforcement of a decision.
29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). By letter to the Commission dated November 18,
1998, petitioner alleged that he had not received the relief ordered
by the Commission. However, the agency later submitted adequate
documentation and detailed calculations showing that the appropriate
backpay and attorney's fees were issued to petitioner and to his
attorney. The agency also submitted adequate documentation showing
that the supplemental investigation was conducted regarding the offer
of full relief and that the agency issued a final decision on March 2,
1999. In addition, the appropriate notice was posted. As noted above,
petitioner has submitted no further information that the actions taken
by the agency were not sufficient. We therefore find that the agency
fully complied with the Commission's Order in 05980345, and accordingly,
we deny petitioner's petition.
As a final matter, we note that if petitioner wishes to pursue additional
claims of reprisal discrimination he should contact an EEO Counselor
regarding these claims.
STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
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. 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 (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:
_07-26-00________ ______________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations