Patricia K. Brady, Appellant,v.Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 12, 1999
01983574_r (E.E.O.C. May. 12, 1999)

01983574_r

05-12-1999

Patricia K. Brady, Appellant, v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency.


Patricia K. Brady, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01983574

) Agency No. 98-0019-HQ

Carol M. Browner, )

Administrator, )

Environmental Protection )

Agency, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On April 1, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from a final agency decision (FAD) received by her on March 6, 1998,

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 on the basis of reprisal for prior EEO

activity when:

During the month of January 1997, appellant �embarked in a home

improvement project.� This project was undertaken at a time when no

job related commitments were planned. During February 1997, appellant

was informed by her supervisor that a two-week training course had

been scheduled for her in Atlanta, Georgia. Appellant requested to

be excused from attending the training. Appellant's supervisor denied

her request and threatened her with charges of insubordination if she

refused to attend. The training was later canceled.

Based on medical treatment initiated due to job related stress,

appellant's doctor wrote a letter to her supervisor asking that during

an upcoming two-week training course (scheduled for July 7 - 18, 1997)

she be allowed to �observe rather than participate� in the training.

On August 13, 1997, appellant met with her first and second-line

supervisors. During this meeting, appellant's second-line supervisor

informed appellant that he �was restricting [appellant's] duties, and

instructed [appellant] to turn in [her] deputation card.� On November

13, 1997, the restriction in the performance

of her duties was lifted and her deputation card returned.

In July 1997, appellant requested to attend the Interagency Committee

on Women in Federal Law Enforcement (ICWIFLE) Training Conference in

Washington, D.C. The registration fee for this conference was $250.00,

and no travel expenses were required. Appellant's request was denied

due to budgetary constraints. Later, two managers located in Chicago

and San Francisco, were approved to attend training in Colorado.

The tuition alone for each manager was $2,650.00.

The agency accepted allegation (3), but dismissed allegations (1)

and (2) pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(e), for being

moot. Specifically, the agency found that because the training class

was canceled, allegation (1) had been rendered moot. Further, the

agency found that in allegation (1), the agency only proposed to take

disciplinary action against appellant. Regarding allegation (2), the

agency found that because appellant was taken off of restricted duty,

and her deputation card was returned, allegation (2) also had been

rendered moot.

On appeal, appellant notes that she never alleged that disciplinary action

was taken against her in allegation (1), and argues that her manager

discriminated against her by showing no sensitivity to appellant's

personal commitments and threatening discipline when a simple denial

of her request would have sufficed. Appellant further claims that her

personal doctor and the doctor who performed her fitness for duty exam

were both aware of appellant's medication, but neither recommended any

work restrictions for appellant. Appellant claims that she was denied

training opportunities and other benefits of employment during her

restriction period.

The remedy requested in appellant's formal complaint, dated November 25,

1997, includes, inter alia, compensatory damages.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(e) provides, in part, that the agency

shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that alleges

that a proposal to take a personnel action, or other preliminary step

to taking a personnel action, is discriminatory. In the present case,

appellant admits that no disciplinary action was taken against her,

but that she was threatened with a personnel action. Accordingly,

the agency's dismissal of allegation (1) is AFFIRMED.<1>

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(e) provides for the dismissal of a

complaint, or portions thereof, when the issues raised therein are moot.

To determine whether the issues raised in appellant's complaint are moot,

the factfinder must ascertain whether (1) it can be said with assurance

that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will

recur; and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably

eradicated the effects of the alleged discrimination. See County of Los

Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). When such circumstances

exist, no relief is available and no need for a determination of the

rights of the parties is presented.

The Commission has held that an agency must address the issue of

compensatory damages when a complainant shows objective evidence

that she has incurred compensatory damages, and that the damages are

related to the alleged discrimination. Jackson v. USPS, EEOC Appeal

No. 01923399 (November 12, 1992), request to reopen denied, EEOC

Request No. 05930306 (February 1, 1993). Should appellant prevail

on this complaint, the possibility of an award of compensatory damages

exists. See Glover v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01930696 (December 9, 1993).

Because appellant requested compensatory damages, the agency should have

requested that appellant provide some objective proof of the alleged

damages incurred, as well as objective evidence linking those damages

to the adverse actions at issue. See Benton v. Department of Defense,

EEOC Appeal No. 01932422 (December 10, 1993). Therefore, we find that

appellant may still be aggrieved as a result of the matters in question.

Accordingly, the agency's dismissal of allegation (2) is REVERSED, and

the allegations are hereby REMANDED to the agency for further processing.

ORDER (E1092)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded allegation in accordance

with 29 C.F.R. �1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the appellant

that it has received the remanded allegation within thirty (30) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue to

appellant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify appellant

of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days

of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise

resolved prior to that time. If the appellant requests

a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final

decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of appellant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to appellant and a copy

of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights

must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

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 appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The appellant 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. ��1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the appellant 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. ��1614.408 and 1614.409. 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) (Supp. V 1993). If the

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

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 (T0993)

This decision affirms the agency's final decision in part, but it also

requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a

portion of your complaint. You have the right to file a civil action

in an appropriate United States District Court on both that portion of

your complaint which the Commission has affirmed AND that portion of the

complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing.

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. 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:

May 12, 1999

____________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations 1Since we are affirming the agency's

dismissal of allegation (1) on the grounds of only alleging a

proposed action, we will not address the agency's alternative

grounds for dismissal, i.e., that the allegation is moot.