Denise Gutierrez, Complainant,v.Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 30, 2003
01A23431_r (E.E.O.C. Apr. 30, 2003)

01A23431_r

04-30-2003

Denise Gutierrez, Complainant, v. Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Denise Gutierrez v. Department of the Navy

01A23431

April 30, 2003

.

Denise Gutierrez,

Complainant,

v.

Hansford T. Johnson,

Acting Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A23431

Agency No. 02-62204-020

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated May 9, 2002, dismissing her complaint of 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. In her

January 24, 2002 complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected

to discrimination on the basis of sex when:

On May 29, 2001, complainant was called into a supervisor's office and

he yelled at her for a fire incident that occurred on May 21, 2001.

On May 31, 2001, complainant was reassigned to an ambulance and informed

that she would no longer be permitted to drive the fire engines.

Complainant was also told she would receive a letter of reprimand.

On June 1, 2001, complainant's supervisor became angry with complainant

for missing roll call.

Between June 2001 and July 2001, at every roll call, complainant's

supervisor would discuss the May 21, 2001 fire incident and blame

complainant.

On August 21, 2001, complainant's request for reassignment to the position

of Firefighter was denied.

In a final decision dated May 9, 2002, the agency dismissed the

complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(4), after determining that

complainant's claims are inextricably intertwined with complainant's

appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), filed on November

8, 2001. The agency further dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely filing of the complaint. Further,

the agency, by notice dated April 26, 2002, informed complainant that the

representative she had chosen presented a conflict of interest. The agency

disqualified complainant's representative from further representation.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(c) states that:

In cases where the representation of a complainant or agency would

conflict with the official or collateral duties of the representative,

the Commission or the agency may, after giving the representative an

opportunity to respond, disqualify the representative.

On appeal, complainant argues that her designated representative should

not have been disqualified by the agency for what the agency asserts

is a "conflict of interest." We agree. We find that the agency

misapplied 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(c) in disqualifying complainant's

chosen representative. See Binion v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC

Appeal No. 01963870 (March 17, 1997). We find that nothing in the record

indicates that complainant's choice of representative presents a conflict

between his duty to complainant (with respect to her instant complaint)

and his official (or collateral) duties with the agency. Rather, the

agency's disqualification rests on the notion that the representative,

in his own EEO matter, may hold an interest adverse to complainant's

interests while advocating her position in the present complaint.

We find this type of competing interest does not fall within the scope

of the proscribed conflicts of interest in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(c).

The agency's decision to disqualify complainant's representative was

therefore improper. We do not find, however, that the agency's dismissal

of the complaint was therefore improper.

A mixed case complaint is a complaint of employment discrimination filed

with a federal agency, related to or stemming from an action that can be

appealed to the MSPB. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302(a)(1). An aggrieved person

may elect to initially file a mixed case complaint with an agency or may

file a mixed case appeal directly with the MSPB, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. �

1201.151, but not both. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302(b). Moreover, whichever

is filed first shall be considered an election to proceed in that forum.

See Dillon v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01981358

(December 23, 1998)(citing Milewski v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Request No. 05920429 (June 11, 1992)).

The record confirms that complainant filed an appeal with the MSPB,

alleging sex discrimination in connection with her "downgrade" or

demotion, from the position of Firefighter Driver/Operator, GS-0081-06,

to the position of Firefighter, GS-0081-05, effective November 18, 2001,

that occurred as a result of complainant's role in the fire incident of

May 21, 2001. We concur with the agency that the events described in

complainant's complaint cannot be separated from the issues contained

in complainant's MSPB appeal. Complainant's filed her MSPB appeal

on November 8, 2001, more than two months prior to her January 24,

2002 EEO complaint. We find therefore, that complainant elected to

pursue her claim for relief through the MSPB process. Accordingly we

AFFIRM the agency's dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(4).

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 (S0900)

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. 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 (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

April 30, 2003

__________________

Date