01983269
04-16-1999
Raymond S. Corral, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Raymond S. Corral v. Department of the Navy
01983269
April 16, 1999
Raymond S. Corral, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01983269
) Agency No. DON 97-00242-002
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
On February 25, 1997, appellant filed a formal complaint alleging that
he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Hispanic),
national origin (Hispanic), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
On September 26, 1996, the Environmental Facilities Manager harassed
appellant by laughing in appellant's face and telling appellant that
he did not have to provide information about a pesticide sprayed in
appellant's work area; and
On September 20, 1996, the Environmental Facilities Manager delayed in
providing appellant with health and safety information about a pesticide
sprayed in appellant's work area.
Appellant requested $100,000 in compensatory damages for the agency's
failure "to curtail the Environmental Facilities Manager's abusive
behavior after being made aware of this situation." By letter dated
July 9, 1997, appellant later amended his requested relief to include
$300,000 in compensatory damages.
Both allegations were accepted for investigation by letter dated May 1,
1997. On June 5, 1997, the agency requested documentation to support
appellant's claim for compensatory damages. Appellant responded by
providing e-mails from appellant requesting information on the pesticides,
two letters from psychiatrists dated June 17, 1997 and June 26, 1997,
describing appellant's stress from having his prior EEO complaint
dismissed and withdrawn, copies of Federal Regulations pertaining
to pesticide use, a 1994 application for tuition reimbursement,
performance appraisals from 1994 and 1995, and a description of the
events from September 20 - 26, 1996. According to the agency, appellant
and agency officials spoke several times via telephone to debate whether
appellant's documentation of compensatory damages had any nexus with the
injury alleged in appellant's complaint. Appellant provided no further
documentation to support his compensatory damages request.
Before the investigation was completed, the agency made a certified
offer of full relief dated December 31, 1997, which provided:
The Environmental Facilities Manager, who was the responsible management
official, is retired and no longer employed at this Command;
Appellant has been provided with the appropriate documentation on the
pesticide use; and
An assurance from the EEO Officer that appellant's working environment
will be free of discrimination and/or reprisal.
Appellant declined the offer in mid-January 1998. Accordingly, on
February 25, 1998, the agency dismissed appellant's complaint, pursuant to
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h), for failure to accept a certified
offer of full relief. Specifically, the agency found that appellant
did not establish the requisite nexus between the accepted issues and
appellant's documentation of his compensatory damages. Therefore, the
agency found that no monetary damages were required to afford appellant
full relief.
On appeal, appellant argues that the prima facie elements of his claim
have been met. In response, the agency notes that appellant failed to
discuss his reasons for rejecting the agency's offer of full relief,
but surmises that appellant was dissatisfied with the offer because it
did not include a monetary damages award. The agency argues that its
offer of full relief need not include compensatory damages because it
provided appellant with an opportunity to document his damages, but
appellant only provided general assertions to support his claim.
The agency also contends that appellant's complaint is moot because the
effects of the alleged violation had been completely and irrevocably
eradicated. Additionally, the agency argues that appellant's allegations
fail to state a claim because appellant was not aggrieved by the alleged
incidents.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h) allows an agency to dismiss a
complaint when the complainant refuses to accept an offer of settlement.
However, the settlement offer must have been a certified offer of
full relief and the agency must have complied with certain procedural
requirements. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h). In the case at hand, the
agency presented the offer to appellant in writing, and informed him
that it would dismiss his complaint if he failed to accept the offer.
In addition, the agency had the appropriate official certify that the
offer provided full relief. See Wrenn v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs,
918 F.2d 1073 (2nd Cir. 1990).
The remaining issue to be determined is whether the agency's offer
actually provided appellant with full relief. Full relief is defined
as that relief which would have been available to a complainant if
he had prevailed on every issue in his complaint. See Albemarle Paper
Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975). In Albemarle, the court held that the
purpose of Title VII is to make victims whole, that is, to place them, as
near as possible, in the situation they would have occupied if the wrong
complained of had not occurred. Id, at 418-419. Thus, an offer of full
relief must be evaluated in terms of whether it includes everything to
which an appellant would have been entitled if there had been a finding
of unlawful discrimination. Merriell v. Department of Transportation,
EEOC Request No. 05890596 (August 10, 1989).
The Commission finds that appellant failed to timely accept a certified
offer of full relief. If appellant had prevailed in his complaint,
he would have been entitled to a copy of the pesticide information,
the cessation of all harassment, and assurances that he would be free
of any further harassment. The agency offer provided appellant with
both forms of relief; he received the pesticide information, and the
responsible official left his supervisory position. Further, the agency
gave appellant the opportunity to explain his request for compensatory
damages, and appellant responded; but the Commission finds that appellant
failed to link his request for damages to the injury he sustained.
Appellant did not provide any evidence of physical or mental distress
that was attributable to his allegations in this complaint. Accordingly,
the agency properly denied appellant's request for compensatory damages.
The agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint was proper and
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. �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:
April 16, 1999
____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations