01970197
11-25-1998
Julia M. Sanchez-Frasure, Appellant, v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
Julia M. Sanchez-Frasure v. Department of Transportation
01970197
November 25, 1998
Julia M. Sanchez-Frasure, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01970197
) Agency No. 2-96-2118
Rodney E. Slater, )
Secretary, )
Department of Transportation, )
(Federal Aviation )
Administration), )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
The Commission finds the agency committed no reversible legal error
in its August 14, 1996 final decision dismissing appellant's July 8,
1996 formal EEO complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29
C.F.R. �1614.107(a), in pertinent part. We find no argument by appellant
in her October 11, 1996 appeal<1> to persuade us to reach a contrary
determination. We find appellant, a Contract Specialist, has failed to
demonstrate how she was harmed by the alleged conspiracy of two named
agency personnel to have her removed; by the agency's purported threat,
on May 13, 1996, "to take action if [appellant] did not cease and desist
from asking questions";<2> or by the agency's alleged failure to respond
to her requests for information pertaining, in relevant part, to the
agency's alleged reduction of her "�unlimited' warrant" to $100,000.
Riden v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970314 (October
2, 1998). In the present case, we also find that, although appellant
referred in her complaint to the warrant reduction after a July 21,
1995 "cc:Mail," concerning the warrants of Contracting Officers,
we find appellant argues on appeal, inter alia, that her warrant was
reduced to $100,000 on July 28, 1995. In this regard, we find appellant
previously raised this allegation with the agency when she alleged her
"unlimited warrant" was rescinded on July 28, 1995. This allegation
was the subject of a decision by the Commission in Sanchez-Frasure
v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01964989 (June 3, 1997).
Therefore, we find that issue is also subject to dismissal pursuant to
29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), in pertinent part. We also find that appellant's
claim for compensatory damages does not, without more, make her complaint
viable. Larotonda v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01933846 (March
11, 1994). Finally, although we note appellant's contentions on appeal
regarding purported improprieties in the processing of her EEO complaint,
we find appellant has presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate
that the FAD did not accurately frame the issues in her complaint.
The FAD is AFFIRMED.
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. �l6l4.604(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. 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 (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:
November 25, 1998
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1Appellant declared on appeal that she received the FAD on September 14,
1996. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we accept appellant's
appeal as timely. 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a).
2In this regard, we note appellant's allegation concerned an e-mail
from an Employee Relations Specialist (ERS). ERS informed appellant, in
pertinent part, that he was "getting complaints from agency managers that
[appellant] was constantly sending cc:mail messages and showing up at
their offices to request information related to incidents that occurred
long ago." ERS advised appellant that if she filed an EEO complaint,
an investigator and not she (appellant) would conduct an investigation.
ERS further informed appellant he would notify her manager if he continued
to receive such management complaints.