05990538
09-09-2002
Robert A. Cantrell, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Request No. 05990538 Appeal No.01983639 Agency No. 5985053
Robert A. Cantrell v. Department of Transportation
05990538
September 9, 2002
.
Robert A. Cantrell,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Request No. 05990538
Appeal No.01983639
Agency No. 5985053
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
INTRODUCTION
The agency initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Robert
A. Cantrell v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01983639
(March 4, 1999). 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. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
For the reasons set forth herein, the agency's request is DENIED.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether our previous decision properly
reversed the agency's final decision which found that complainant failed
to state a claim when he alleged that he was subjected to reprisal
discrimination when adverse action was taken against his wife.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that
he was the victim of reprisal discrimination when his wife was discharged
from her position for purportedly falsifying her time sheet. According
to the complainant, the discharge was orchestrated by the agency in
retaliation for his successful pursuit of an age discrimination complaint.
In its final decision, dated March 9, 1998, the agency dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon finding that the alleged
harm was not taken against the complainant, and therefore, he was not
an aggrieved party. Complainant appealed the final agency decision.
On appeal, our previous decision reversed the agency's dismissal.
That decision found that retaliation against a close relative of an
individual who opposed discrimination can be challenged by both the
individual who engaged in protected activity and the relative, where
both are employees.
In its request for reconsideration, the agency argues that the previous
decision contained a misinterpretation of a material fact because
complainant's wife was not an agency employee, but rather a contractor
employee who was assigned to work in the agency's Flight Inspection
Maintenance Division. To support its argument, the agency relied upon our
decision in Carla Cantrell v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal
No. 01983017 (February 25, 1999), in which we found that complainant,
the wife of the complainant herein, was not an agency employee because
she did not challenge the contention that she was not an employee of the
agency, or an applicant thereof, at the time of the incidents described
in her complaint.<1>
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, the anti-discrimination
statute at issue herein, prohibits retaliation against someone so closely
related to or associated with the person exercising his or her statutory
rights that it would discourage or prevent the person from pursuing
those rights. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8-II, C.3 (May 20, 1998)
(hereinafter referred to as the Compliance Manual on Retaliation or CMR).
In the present case, the agency's request for reconsideration appears
to focus on the employment status of the complainant's wife. But in
retaliation cases such as this one, the wife's employment status is
irrelevant. One of the purposes of our retaliation provisions is to
ensure that alleged discriminatory actions on the part of the agency do
not have a chilling effect upon the willingness of individuals to speak
out against those actions or participate in the EEOC's administrative
process or other employment discrimination proceedings. In this case,
complainant is contending that the agency took affirmative steps to
terminate his wife's employment in retaliation for his prior EEO activity.
Allowing him to file an EEO complaint based on the agency's alleged role
in the termination is consistent with the purposes of our retaliation
provisions.
We note that our previous decision, like the agency's request to
reconsider, focused on the wife's employment status. As pointed out by
the agency, our previous decision erroneously indicated that the wife was
an employee of the agency. We also note that both the agency's request
and our previous decision focused on that portion of the CMR which states
that �For example, it would be unlawful for an [employer] to retaliate
against an employee because his or her spouse, who is also an employee,
filed an EEOC charge (emphasis added). But a careful reading of that
portion indicates that it was intended to be an illustrative example of
the kinds of situations where the person claiming retaliation need not
be the person who engaged in prior EEO participation. By no means was
it intended to be an exhaustive list of the kinds of adverse actions
that our retaliation provision prevents. Based on the foregoing,
we find that our previous decision's erroneous factual conclusion that
complainant's wife was an agency employee did not prevent it from reaching
the correct legal conclusion. The agency's alleged role in the firing
of complainant's spouse is an action reasonably likely to deter protected
activity by the complainant and therefore, the complaint states a claim.
CONCLUSION
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. 01983639 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 (E0900)
The agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with
29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant
that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue
to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify
complainant 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 complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision
within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant 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 (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 9, 2002
__________________
Date
1No Request to Reconsider was filed on EEOC Appeal No. 01983017, and
that matter is not before us.