01982061
12-18-1998
Carolyn V. Marrocco, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Carolyn V. Marrocco v. United States Postal Service
01982061
December 18, 1998
Carolyn V. Marrocco, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982061
) Agency No. 4C-175-0007-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On January 22, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final agency decision (FAD) dated December 19, 1997, pertaining
to her 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. In her complaint, appellant alleged that she was subjected to
discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on August 18,
1997, her supervisor, with the approval of the Postmaster, posted a Bulk
Mail Technician level 6 job for bid, and appellant was told by coworkers
that there was never a job like that posted before.
The agency dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation
29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim. Specifically,
the agency determined that appellant failed to show how she was aggrieved
as a result of this action, as she did not bid for the position.
On appeal, appellant acknowledges that another employee bid for and was
awarded the position, but asserts that the position was an unfavorable
one, and was created so that appellant would have to bid for it or be
demoted from her level 6 position.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides, in relevant part, that
an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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;
�1614.106(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 21, 1994).
In the instant case, although appellant alleged that she would lose her
level 6 position if she did not bid on the job, the record shows that
the unfavorable position was awarded to another individual. Further,
the record does not show that appellant was demoted as a result of not
bidding for the position. We find that the mere fact that appellant
might have suffered economic harm as a result of the action, does not
render her aggrieved. Appellant's complaint concerned speculative and
possible future harm. See Stroud v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC
Appeal No. 01952101 (October 26, 1995); Spencer v. Department of the
Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01942408 (June 1, 1994). Appellant anticipated
being demoted if she did not bid for the job, or having to accept the
unfavorable position if she bid for it. The record shows that neither of
the anticipated harms occurred. Accordingly, the absence of an actual
present harm dictates the conclusion that appellant failed to state a
claim. See Parks v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 059503141
(September 11, 1995) citing Drummond v. Department of the Army, EEOC
Request No. 05940574 (February 7, 1995).
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint is
AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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 (S0993)
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:
Dec. 18, 1998
____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations