Lois J. Corwye, Complainant,v.R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 14, 2004
05a40572 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 2004)

05a40572

09-14-2004

Lois J. Corwye, Complainant, v. R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Lois J. Corwye v. Department of the Army

05A40572

September 14, 2004

.

Lois J. Corwye,

Complainant,

v.

R.L. Brownlee,

Acting Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Request No. 05A40572

Appeal No. 01A40621

Agency No. ARCESTLO3JUL0011

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Department of the Army (agency) timely initiated a request to

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to

reconsider the decision in Lois J. Corwye v. Department of the Army,

EEOC Appeal No. 01A40621 (March 2, 2004). EEOC Regulations provide that

the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission

decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405(b).

On September 4, 2003, complainant, working at the agency as a secretary

through �Kelly Services/FedSource,� filed a formal complaint pursuant

to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Therein, complainant claimed that she was

mistreated by co-workers and ultimately terminated because of race-based

discrimination. The agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds of

failure to state a claim, finding that complainant was not an employee

of the agency, and had no standing under Title VII.

In the previous decision, Commission set forth the analysis which is

applied to determine whether a complainant may be deemed an employee

of the agency, for the purpose of Title VII protection, to include the

non-exhaustive list of twelve factors under Ma v. Department of health

and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962390 (June 1, 1998). However,

the Commission determined that the record did not contain a copy of

the Kelly Services/FedSource contract, or any additional information to

describe the �means and manner� of the agency's control over complainant's

day-to-day work, which is the over-riding consideration under the Ma

analysis. The Commission vacated the agency's dismissal of the captioned

complaint, and remanded the case to the agency to conduct a supplemental

investigation. Specifically, the Commission ordered the agency to obtain

evidence addressing the factors set forth in Ma, to include a copy of

the contract between the agency and Kelly Services/FedSource.

In its request for reconsideration, the agency argues that it submitted

a timely brief in opposition to complainant's appeal to the Commission,

to include a copy of the �FedSource� contract, the �Administrative

Task Order� reflecting the services to be provided by complainant,

and �Guidelines Regarding Contract Placement� (a FedSource document),

and again attaches these same documents to the instant request.

The agency avers that the latter document specifies that FedSource

will monitor employee performance, take necessary disciplinary action,

deal with conduct issues, and make awards, and that problems with

performance, attendance, personal problems, etc. should be referred to

the �contractor.� The agency also submits evidence of the Commission's

receipt of its brief and attachments, and asks that the Commission

reconsider its previous decision and instead find that complainant does

not have standing to bring the captioned complaint.

Upon review, we find that the agency submits sufficient evidence to

demonstrate that it filed a brief with the Commission, on or about

January 14, 2004; however, this brief was not associated with the

appellate record in this case. The attachments to the agency's brief,

now submitted in conjunction with the instant request contain probative

evidence regarding the contractual terms of complainant's employment;

however, the Commission determines that the record still lacks critical

information regarding the actual, day-to-day, �means and manner� of

control that the agency had over complainant's work. Review of the many

affidavits of record reveals that they focus primarily on complainant's

inter-personal relationship with co-workers and agency managers.

There is virtually no information regarding whether contract provisions

and guidelines are being adhered to in terms of the �means and manner� of

control over complainant's work. Therefore, even with the submission of

the above referenced contract documents, we find that the record still

lacks adequate evidence to make a determination in this case.

After a review of the agency's request for reconsideration, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request

fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the

decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC

Appeal No. 01A40621 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no

further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission

on this request for reconsideration.

ORDER

The agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation and supplement the

record with evidence which shows whether complainant was an employee of

the agency focusing on the factors set forth in Ma, which shall again

include a copy of the contract between the agency and FedSource and/or

Kelly Services. Thereafter, the agency shall either issue a final

decision dismissing the complaint or a letter accepting the complaint

for investigation. The supplemental investigation and issuance of the

decision or letter of acceptance must be completed with 30 calendar days

of the date this decision becomes final.

A copy of the agency's letter accepting the complaint for investigation

or a copy of the new decision dismissing the complaint must be sent to

the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

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.

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

September 14, 2004

__________________

Date