01986992
08-14-2001
Bolivar H. Leon, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Bolivar H. Leon v. Department of the Army,
01986992
08-14-01
.
Bolivar H. Leon,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. White,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01986992
Agency No. AFBG9510F0670
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Bolivar H. Leon (the complainant) timely initiated an appeal to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the
final decision of the Department of the Army (agency), concerning his
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether the complainant was discriminated
against on the bases of his sex (male), national origin (Puerto Rican)
and reprisal (protected EEO activity in opposition to an unlawful
employment action) when he was denied a promotion to the position of
Equal Employment Specialist, GS-12, in January 1995.
BACKGROUND
During the relevant period, the complainant worked as an Equal Employment
(EE) Specialist, GS-11, with the Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) Office, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.
The complaint is based on the complainant not being promoted to the
position of EE Specialist, GS-12, through the Managing Civilians to
Budget (MCB) authority, i.e., his supervisor could not use her MCB
authority to promote him. The record reflects that the complainant added
the allegation of reprisal near the conclusion of the investigation.
This complaint was combined, for purposes of investigation only, with
a similar complaint filed by coworker A, a GS-11 EE Specialist (Agency
No. AFBG9510F0680), who was also not promoted through MCB. Coworker A
alleged discrimination based on his race/color (black) and reprisal.
The Temporary Equal Employment Manager (TEEM), the complainant's
supervisor, received MCB authority on May 10, 1993. This authority
included classifying civilian positions under her control to the
appropriate pay plan, title, series and grade. MCB classification
procedures for the major subordinate command (then DESCOM) were as
follows: When an MCB supervisor submits a job description and SF-52
for action, the Civilian Personnel Office submits an �advisory.� When
the MCB supervisor and the Civilian Personnel Office disagree, the
Commanding General, the Position Management Officer (the next higher
level supervisor), and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management
are notified to provide the opportunity for higher level management
intervention. If nothing is received from upper management, the Civilian
Personnel Office processes the action requested by the MCB supervisor.
On September 22, 1993, the TEEM submitted an SF-52 request to upgrade
the complainant's position. Subsequently, there was a series of
correspondence between the TEEM and the Civilian Personnel Office
reflecting their continued disagreement over the grade of the position.
On February 14, 1994, the Chief of the Civilian Personnel Office
Classification, Staffing, and Service Division, notified the Civilian
Executive Assistant (CEA) that the grade of the complainant's position
would have a direct impact on the grade of the TEEM's position; therefore,
the CEA had to allocate the positions using his own MCB authority.
The CEA was the TEEM's supervisor, as well as the Position Management
Officer. There is no documentation of any decision by the CEA.
The complainant argued, in pertinent part, that he was disparately
treated. He said that he felt that he was discriminated against when
he was not promoted because his supervisor was not allowed to use her
MCB authority. He mentioned that other supervisors have used their MCB
authorities and minority employees always have to file complaints to
obtain higher grades. He compared himself with a Personnel Management
Specialist, who was upgraded from a GS-11 to a GS-12 position, effective
November 27, 1994. The complainant asserted that the Classification Team
Leader, at that time, applied identical language in EEO and personnel
classification standards (related to size and complexity of the service
area) differently in the Personnel Management Specialist's case. He said
this is typical of how the Civilian Personnel Office staff treats white
employees more favorably. He commented that the CEA likewise does not
support upgrades for minority employees, but as Position Management
Officer will overrule the Civilian Personnel Office advice to upgrade
white employees. In this case, he expressed that the CEA and the
Classification Team Leader worked together to deny him a promotion.
With respect to the complainant's allegation of reprisal, he indicated
that he was prevented from receiving a promotion to an EE Specialist,
GS-12, position in retaliation for his threats of filing an EEO complaint
in this matter.
According to an affidavit dated in September 1995, Coworker A reported
that he met with the CEA on January 17, 1995, on various matters
concerning the EEO Office. In the course of their discussion, he said
that he told the CEA that both he and the complainant intended to file
complaints about not being promoted since they felt that they had no
other recourse.
The CEA stated that he made no decision on the complainant's promotion,
solely because of the discrimination complaint. He explained that he
wanted to upgrade the EEO Manager's job and to permanently promote the
TEEM (who was then on a temporary promotion to GS-13); that a hiring
freeze prohibited filling GS-13 jobs without an exception from higher
headquarters; and that an exception was requested on June 13, 1994,
while the request to upgrade the complainant's job was still pending.
He explained, after approval was obtained, that the TEEM was promoted to
Equal Employment Manager, GM-13, effective January 22, 1995. He said
that he then decided to take no action on the request to upgrade the
complainant's position because of this complaint. He mentioned that he
didn't know whether he had ever before decided to make no decision on
exercise of MCB authority; that he thought that there were other times
when he either concurred with an MCB manager or supported the Civilian
Personnel Office recommendation, but he could not recall the specifics.
For all MCB cases during the preceding two years, the record shows that
the CEA made decisions and those decisions supported the MCB manager.
The Classification Team Leader stated that he based his grade level
recommendation solely on pertinent classification factors. He explained
that many of the major duties proposed for the TEEM overlapped with
the complainant's proposed duties, and the Civilian Personnel Office
forwarded a package to CEA for a decision on February 14, 1994, because
of the potential impact of the TEEM using her MCB authority to promote
the complainant on the permanent grade of her own job. He confirmed
that CEA never made any decision on the complainant's grade level
and said that he was sure his office still had the SF-52 requesting
the complainant's promotion because he considered the case unresolved.
He denied discrimination in his classification recommendations and said
that the context of �complexity� in an EEO job differs from its context
in a personnel job (in comparing his application of standards for the
different jobs encumbered by the Personnel Management Specialist and
the complainant).
The Position Classification Specialist, who made the higher headquarters
recommendation regarding the EEO Officer position, stated that he agreed
with the classification rationale offered by the Classification Team
Leader for the grade of the EEO Office positions (GS-11 for complainant's
position).
Other witnesses requested by the complainant were not contacted since
it did not appear that they could provide evidence related to the
discriminatory bases alleged.
The complainant sought counseling and subsequently filed a formal
complaint on May 19, 1995. At the conclusion of the investigation,
the investigator recommended a finding of reprisal discrimination.
The investigator also recommended that the complainant be retroactively
promoted to a GS-12 EE Specialist position. By memorandum dated on
February 7, 1996, the agency informed the complainant of his right
to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), or
alternatively, to receive an immediate final decision from the agency.
When the complainant failed to respond within the time period specified
in 29 C.F.R. �1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision finding
no discrimination.
On appeal, the complainant argues the merits of his case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Disparate Treatment
The complainant's complaint alleges a claim of disparate treatment on
the bases of sex and national origin. A claim of disparate treatment
is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell
Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For the complainant
to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination
by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an
inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration
was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas,
411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567
(1978). 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). Once the agency has met
its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade
the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted
on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993).
The complainant may establish a prima facie case of discrimination
in the nonselection context by showing that: (1) he is a member of
a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he
was not selected for the position; and (4) he was accorded treatment
different from that given to persons otherwise similarly situated who
are not members of his protected group. Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor
v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (September
18, 1996). The complainant may also set forth evidence of acts from
which, if otherwise unexplained, an inference of discrimination can be
drawn. Furnco, 438 U.S. at 576.
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
the complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Service
Bd. Of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983).
Assuming arguendo that the complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination based on his sex and national origin, the Commission finds
that the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Specifically, the record documents that the TEEM exercised
her MCB authority on February 7, 1994, after trying unsuccessfully
to obtain the Civilian Personnel Office's favorable advisory. Twice,
on December 3, 1993, and January 21, 1994, the TEEM was advised by the
Civilian Personnel Office that position descriptions for the GS-11 EE
Specialist position did not justify GS-12 because of three job factors,
�supervisory controls,� �complexity,� and �scope and effect.� As such,
the Civilian Personnel Office's reasons for disagreeing with the TEEM
are legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Moreover, the Civilian Personnel
Office's position was supported by the Position Classification Specialist,
a GS-13 Classification Specialist at higher headquarters. The Position
Classification Specialist said that he agreed with the Civilian Personnel
Office's classification rationale. The record shows that the Position
Classification Specialist advised the Civilian Personnel Office that
for the GS-11 positions to be graded at the 12 level, they would
need to be given a lot of responsibility and independence of actions,
thereby precluding them from being credited as base level work for the
supervisory position, which in turn would require that the supervisory
position (TEEM) be classified as a GS-12. Subsequently, on February
14, 1994, in response to TEEM's exercise of MCB authority, the Chief
of the Civilian Personnel Office Classification, Staffing, and Service
Division forwarded this matter to CEA because the position in question
had a direct impact on the grade of the supervisory position exercising
the MCB authority and MCB classification procedures required that the
next higher supervisory position in the direct chain of command exercise
their MCB authority to allocate the positions.
Additionally, the Classification Team Leader and the Position
Classification Specialist stated that they based their grade
recommendation solely on pertinent classification factors. Furthermore,
available data demonstrated that the staff has disagreed with MCB managers
11 times when the incumbents to be promoted were white and twice when
those incumbents were nonwhite (12 times when incumbents were male and
once when the incumbent was female). Moreover, the CEA has a record
of supporting the MCB managers in grade level determinations when those
managers disagree with the Civilian Personnel Office staff. As background
information, data showed that there were 13 cases involving exercise of
MCB authority between 1993 and 1995. In 11 cases, involving four series
and grade determinations, the incumbents were promoted through MCB (10
males, 1 female). The only two cases where incumbents were not promoted
involved the positions occupied by the complainant and coworker A.
Furthermore, the record shows that the Personnel Management Specialist
was not similarly situated to the complainant and her promotion was not
based on MCB authority, but on job accretion.
The burden returns to the complainant to establish that the agency's
reasoning was pretext for discrimination. Upon review, the Commission
finds that the complainant has failed to do so. The complainant merely
argues that the incidents occurred, however, the complainant fails to
show that the agency's actions were motivated by a discriminatory animus
toward his sex and/or national origin.
Reprisal
The complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal
discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give
rise to an inference of discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security
Admin., EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996) (citing McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). Specifically, in a reprisal claim,
and in accordance with the burdens set forth in McDonnell Douglas,
supra, Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,
425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976),
and Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960473
(November 20, 1997), a complainant may establish a prima facie case
of reprisal by showing that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity;
(2) the agency was aware of his protected activity; (3) subsequently, he
was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a nexus exists
between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Whitmire
v. Department of the Air Force, Appeal No. 01A00340 (September 25, 2000).
Here, the complainant has established a prima facie case on the basis
of reprisal. Since complainant has established a prima facie case of
reprisal discrimination, the burden shifts to the agency to articulate
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04. In response to complainant's claim
of discrimination, the agency presented evidence that the CEA made
the decision to hold off with respect to the request to promote the
complainant until the TEEM'S job description was resolved. The record
documents that CEA took formal action to upgrade TEEM's job to the 13
level on January 12, 1995, and that this was accomplished effective
January 22, 1995.
Since the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its actions, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate
that the agency's articulated reason was pretext for discrimination.
The complainant can do this either by showing that a discriminatory
reason more likely motivated the agency, or that the agency's proffered
explanation is unworthy of credence. Burdine at 253. Here, complainant
contends that the agency's articulated reason is unworthy of belief.
The record reveals that, until January 1995, the CEA's actions with
respect to the request to promote the complainant were appropriate.
He deferred action, based on the Civilian Personnel Office staff advice,
until the matter of the TEEM's promotion could be resolved through an
exception approved by Industrial Operations Command. The classification
advice provided by the Position Classification Specialist of Industrial
Operations Command provides a rationale for not promoting the complainant.
However, it is clear that the CEA did not rely on that advice, but
that, in January 1995, he decided to take no action because he thought
that an EEO complaint had been, or would be, filed over this matter.
His decision to take no action was, in effect, the same as a decision
not to promote the complainant. His affidavit regarding his reasons is
clear and unequivocal. It is further bolstered by coworker A's affidavit.
According to paragraph 5 of the MCB procedures provided in the record,
failure by higher management to intervene when notified of a disagreement
between the MCB manager and the classifier should result in a promotion
for the employee affected. In this case, the lack of intervention was
deliberate and based on a reason (complainant's protected EEO activity)
which is neither legitimate nor nondiscriminatory. Despite the agency's
contentions that complainant's civil rights were not violated, we find
that the complainant has shown that more likely than not reprisal was a
motivating factor in the agency's denial of a promotion to the complainant
for the position of Equal Employment Specialist, GS-12, in January 1995.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the
complainant's claim of sex and national origin discrimination and
REVERSED with respect to his reprisal claim. The Commission hereby
finds that the complainant was not discriminated against on the bases
of sex and national origin. We find, however, that the complainant was
discriminated on the basis of reprisal, and the agency is instructed to
take remedial action in accordance with this decision and the order below.
ORDER
The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:
Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
the agency shall retroactively promote the complainant to position of
Equal Employment Specialist, GS-12, or an equivalent position effective
from January 22, 1995. The complainant shall also be awarded back pay,
overtime and other employee benefits effective from January 22, 1995,
along with any incurred and reasonable attorney's fees.
The agency shall determine the appropriate amount of back pay, if any,
with interest; overtime, if any with interest; and any other benefits
due the complainant, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501, less 29 C.F.R. �
1614.501, less any appropriate offsets, no later than sixty (60) calendar
days after the date this decision becomes final. The complainant shall
cooperate in the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay,
overtime pay and benefits due, and shall provide all relevant information
requested by the agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact
amount of back pay, overtime pay and/or benefits, the agency shall issue
a check to the complainant for the undisputed amount within sixty (60)
calendar days of the date the agency determines the amount it believes
to be due. The complainant may petition for enforcement or clarification
of the amount in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement
must be filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in
the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision."
The agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation to determine
whether complainant is entitled to compensatory damages incurred as a
result of the agency's discriminatory actions. The agency shall allow
complainant to present evidence in support of his compensatory damages
claim. See Carle v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369
(January 5, 1993). Complainant shall cooperate with the agency in
this regard. Thereafter, the agency shall issue a final decision. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The supplemental investigation and issuance of
the final decision must be completed within ninety (90) calendar days
of the date this decision becomes final. A copy of the final decision
must be submitted to the Compliance Officer, as referenced below.
The agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the
management officials identified as being responsible for the decision
to deny the complainant's promotion to the Equal Employment Specialist,
GS-12, position. The agency shall report its decision. If the agency
decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken.
If the agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set
forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline.
The agency shall post the attached notice as provided below.
The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as
provided in the statement entitled �Implementation of the Commission's
Decision.� The report shall include supporting documentation of
the agency's investigation into complainant's claim for compensatory
damages, a report on the agency officials' training, and evidence that
the corrective action has been implemented.
POSTING ORDER (G0900)
The agency is ordered to post at all facilities within the authority
of the Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, copies of
the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the
agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the agency
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final,
and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive days, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer
at the address cited in the paragraph entitled "Implementation of the
Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration
of the posting period.
ATTORNEY'S FEES (H0900)
If complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.501(e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid
by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees
to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this
decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for
attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 (M0701)
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 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 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 (R0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__08-14-01________________
Date
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
An Agency of the United States Government
This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission dated which found that
a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. has occurred at the Department of the Army,
Letterkenny Army Depot.
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any
employee or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE,
COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or PHYSICAL or MENTAL
DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation,
or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
The Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot supports and will
comply with such Federal law and will not take action against individuals
because they have exercised their rights under law.
The Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot was found to
have unlawfully discriminated against the individual affected by the
Commission's findings on the basis of reprisal when the agency denied
him a promotion to the position of Equal Employment Specialist, GS-12,
in January 1995. The agency shall therefore remedy the discrimination
by retroactively promoting the individual, paying the individual back
pay, other benefits due, attorneys fees, and compensatory damages.
The facility will ensure that officials responsible for personnel
decisions and terms and conditions of employment will abide by the
requirements of all Federal equal employment opportunity laws.
The Department of the Army, Letterkenny Army Depot will not in any
manner restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate against any individual
who exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful by,
or who participates in proceedings pursuant to, Federal equal employment
opportunity law.
______________________________
Date Posted:
Posting Expires:
29 C.F.R. Part 1614