[Redacted], Martina S., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 26, 2022

Appeal No. 2022002760 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 26, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Martina S.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2022002760 Agency No. 4G-752-0014-22 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the Agency's final decision dated March 21, 2022, dismissing a formal complaint alleging 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., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s South Garland Station in Garland, Texas. On February 4, 2022, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on race, age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. On September 2, 2021, she became aware her elected medical insurance was cancelled retroactive to June 2021; and 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2022002760 2 2. On September 17, 2021, she became aware funds were being withheld from her paycheck due to reimbursement of funds associated with the insurance. In its March 21, 2020 decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint for failure to state a claim due to lodging a collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum, specifically, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The instant appeal followed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Under the regulations set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, an agency shall accept a complaint from an aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). If complainant cannot establish that s/he is aggrieved, the agency shall dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). Here, the Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because they characterized it as a collateral attack on a decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). A claim that can be characterized as a collateral attack, by definition, involves a challenge to another forum's adjudicatory decision or proceedings, such as the grievance process, the unemployment compensation process, or the workers' compensation process. See, e.g., Fisher v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05931059 (July 15, 1994) (challenge to agency's appeal within the workers' compensation process fails to state a claim as an EEO complaint); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 23, 1994) (challenge to evidentiary ruling in grievance process fails to state a claim as an EEO complaint). We find that the matter identified in the instant formal complaint was not a collateral attack as determined by the Agency. A fair reading of the record instead reflects that the actions of the Agency precipitated the matter which is the subject of the formal complaint. It appears that when Complainant was converted to a Full-Time Regular Carrier by the Agency, she was offered by the Agency, and elected, health insurance coverage. However, the Agency later determined that, because of Complainant’s leave status (Leave Without Pay/Injury-on-Duty), the insurance was offered in error and Complainant is now being held accountable for the insurance premiums that had been paid by the Agency for the coverage. Whether or not the decision concerning Complainant’s entitlement to insurance coverage was made by the Agency pursuant to an OPM regulation or guidance goes to the merits of Complainant’s claim, and is not relevant to the procedural issues of whether Complainant stated a justiciable claim. See Ferrazzoli v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05910642 (August 15, 1991). 2022002760 3 However, we conclude that the essence of the complaint concerns an asserted debt the Agency is claiming it is owed from Complainant. Therefore, the complaint should still be dismissed pursuant to the Debt Collection Act. The Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711 et seq., mandates that monetary disputes involving an agency of the United States government and any claimed debtor must be resolved through the provisions of the Debt Collection Act. The Commission has previously held that challenges to an agency's actions under the Debt Collection Act are not within the scope of the EEO complaint process. See Baughman v. Department of Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01900865 (February 26, 1990); Amato v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 0520070240 (July 18, 2007). The proper forum for Complainant to challenge the propriety of the collection process and validity of her debt is through the administrative process of the Debt Collection Act. CONCLUSION The Agency’s final decision dismissing the instant formal complaint is AFFIRMED, albeit for different reasons. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx 2022002760 4 Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 (S0610) 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. 2022002760 5 Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations July 26, 2022 Date