CAREN R. HOOKS, APPELLANT,v.MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 28, 1995
01953852 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 28, 1995)

01953852

11-28-1995

CAREN R. HOOKS, APPELLANT, v. MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY.


CAREN R. HOOKS, APPELLANT,

v.

MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY.

Appeal No.

01953852

, 01953942, 01954184, 01954201, 01955046, 01955903, 01955904, 01955905, 01955906, 01955907, 01955908, 01955909, 01955910, 01955911, 01955912, 01955913, 01955914, 01955915, 01955916, 01955917, 01955918, 01955919, 01955920, 01955921, 01955922, 01955923, 01955924, 01955925, 01955926, 01955927, 01955928, 01955929, 01955930, 01955931, 01955932, 01955934, 01955933, 01955935, 01955936, 01955937, 01955938, 01955939, 01955940, 01955941, 01955942, 01955943, 01955944, 01955945, 01955946, 01955947, 01955948, 01955949, 01955950, 01955951, 01955952, 01955953, 01955954, 01955955, 01955956, 01955957, 01955958, 01955959, 01955960, 01955961, 01955963, 01955964, 01955965, 01955966, 01955967, 01955968, 01955969, 01955970, 01955971, 01955972, 01955973, 01955974, 01955975, 01955976, 01955977, 01955978, 01955979, 01955980, 01955981, 01955982, 01955983, 01955984, 01955985, 01955986, 01955987, 01955988

Agency No. 1-G-772-1247-95,

et al.

(see attachment)

November 28, 1995

The following footnote references are unavailable and missing from the proceeding opinion text.

[FN1]

DECISION

Appellant has filed one hundred thirty-two appeals from final agency decisions procedurally dismissing her complaints. The agency dismissed one hundred thirty-one cases for failure to state a claim, and dismissed one case on the grounds that appellant had raised the matter stated therein in a previously filed complaint. [FN2] In each of the one hundred thirty-two complaints at issue herein, appellant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.

The regulations implementing the statutory language of Title VII are subject to strict compliance once an equal employment opportunity complaint has been accepted for investigation. See generally 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. The language of the regulations, however, does not deprive the Commission of its authority to protect its administrative process from abuse by either party. Quite the contrary, this Commission has the inherent power to control and prevent abuse of its orders or processes and its procedure. Buren v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05850299 (November 18, 1985). The procedures contained in its regulations provide the process by which allegations of discrimination are processed in the Federal sector which are conducive to eliminating or preventing unlawful employment discrimination. The procedures set forth should not be misconstrued as substitutes for either inadequate or ineffective labor management relations or an alternative or substitute for labor management disputes.

On rare occasions, the Commission has applied abuse of process standards to particular complaints. Occasions in which application of the standards are appropriate must be rare, because of the strong policy in favor of preserving a complainant's EEO rights whenever possible. See generally Love v. Pullman, Inc., 404 U.S. 522 (1972) and Wrenn v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 01932105 (August 19, 1993). Abuse of process can be defined as a clear pattern of misuse of the process for ends other than that which it was designed to accomplish. See Buren, supra.

The Commission has carefully reviewed the numerous appeals and complaints filed by appellant. It is the ultimate opinion of this Commission that appellant has pursued a scheme involving the misuse and misapplication of the administrative process which she justified in itself for an end other than that it was designed to accomplish. In the enumerated cases, appellant merely presented frivolous issues, which cited similar or in some cases identical allegations. A definite pattern of initiating the complaint machinery for any matter of which appellant was dissatisfied had developed, which clearly amounted to an abuse of the administrative process. This is evident in the subject matter of the appeals presently before this Commission. For example: seventeen appeals concern the agency's purportedly improper dismissal of previously filed EEO complaints for failure to state a claim; [FN3] sixty-eight appeals address the agency's alleged refusal to allow appellant to meet with her representative in previously filed complaints; eleven appeals address allegedly improper EEO counseling that had been provided in prior complaints; [FN4] ten appeals address the alleged inadequacy of time the agency allowed for appellant's preparation of briefs in prior complaints; and eleven appeals address the agency's alleged denial of appellant's request to be anonymous in prior complaints. All of the complaints raise allegations addressing the agency's purported denial of appellant's access to supplies, equipment, and storage for the processing of EEO complaints; denial of official time for the processing of EEO complaints; and restraint during the EEO complaints process. In several complaints, the allegations relating to equipment, official time, and restraint are the sole allegations raised. In most complaints, they are included as an addendum to other allegations. While not inclusive, the above listing of appellant's complaints is instructive. The one hundred thirty-two appeals represent only those complaints presently pending. It should be noted that all of the appeals were filed within a four-month period, and that eighty-six were filed on a single day (August 11, 1995). This does not reflect nor address closed appeals and any cases yet to be received. [FN5]

Appellant has blatantly overburdened the administrative system by filing these complaints. What is presented is a concerted attempt by appellant to retaliate against the agency's in-house administrative machinery. The Commission cannot permit a party to utilize the EEO process to circumvent administrative processes; nor can the Commission permit individuals to overburden this system, which is designed to protect innocent individuals from discriminatory practices. Thus, this Commission declines to entertain the enumerated matters any further. This decision is not to be construed as a holding that the mere filing of numerous complaints constitutes an abuse of process.

It should be noted that failure to administratively process the underlying allegations does not deprive, nor diminish, appellant's right(s) to file a civil action.

CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of these matters, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's dismissal of appellant's complaints.

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. 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:

Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

ATTACHMENT A

CASES ADDRESSED HEREIN

Appeal No. Agency No. 01953852 1-G-772-1247-95 01953942 1-G-772-1047-95 01954184 1-G-772-1236-95 (20 complaints) 1-G-772-1237-95 1-G-772-1240-95 1-G-772-1241-95 1-G-772-1242-95 1-G-772-1301-95 1-G-772-1302-95 1-G-772-1303-95 1-G-772-1304-95 1-G-772-1305-95 1-G-772-1306-95 1-G-772-1307-95 1-G-772-1308-95 1-G-772-1309-95 1-G-772-1310-95 1-G-772-1329-95 1-G-772-1330-95 1-G-772-1331-95 1-G-772-1332-95 1-G-772-1333-95 01954201 1-G-772-1150-95 01955046 1-G-772-1238-95 (23 complaints) 1-G-772-1239-95 1-G-772-1246-95 1-G-772-1319-95 1-G-772-1320-95 1-G-772-1321-95 1-G-772-1322-95 1-G-772-1323-95 1-G-772-1324-95 1-G-772-1325-95 1-G-772-1326-95 1-G-772-1327-95 1-G-772-1328-95 1-G-772-1334-95 1-G-772-1335-95 1-G-772-1336-95 1-G-772-1337-95 1-G-772-1338-95 1-G-772-1243-95 1-G-772-1244-95 1-G-772-1245-95 1-G-772-1355-95 1-G-772-1356-95 01955903 1-G-772-1465-95 01955904 1-G-772-1351-95 01955905 1-G-772-1448-95 01955906 1-G-772-1208-95 01955907 1-G-772-1218-95 01955908 1-G-772-1219-95 01955909 1-G-772-1249-95 01955910 1-G-772-1250-95 01955911 1-G-772-1251-95 01955912 1-G-772-1282-95 01955913 1-G-772-1281-95 01955914 1-G-772-1283-95 01955915 1-G-772-1284-95 01955916 1-G-772-1285-95 01955917 1-G-772-1286-95 01955918 1-G-772-1287-95 01955919 1-G-772-1288-95 01955920 1-G-772-1289-95 01955921 1-G-772-1290-95 01955922 1-G-772-1291-95 01955923 1-G-772-1292-95 01955924 1-G-772-1294-95 01955925 1-G-772-1295-95 01955926 1-G-772-1296-95 01955927 1-G-772-1297-95 01955928 1-G-772-1298-95 01955929 1-G-772-1300-95 01955930 1-G-772-1311-95 01955931 1-G-772-1312-95 01955932 1-G-772-1313-95 01955934 1-G-772-1339-95 01955933 1-G-772-1314-95 01955935 1-G-772-1340-95 01955936 1-G-772-1341-95 01955937 1-G-772-1348-95 01955938 1-G-772-1349-95 01955939 1-G-772-1350-95 01955940 1-G-772-1352-95 01955941 1-G-772-1353-95 01955942 1-G-772-1354-95 01955943 1-G-772-1366-95 01955944 1-G-772-1379-95 01955945 1-G-772-1413-95 01955946 1-G-772-1414-95 01955947 1-G-772-1415-95 01955948 1-G-772-1416-95 01955949 1-G-772-1417-95 01955950 1-G-772-1418-95 01955951 1-G-772-1419-95 01955952 1-G-772-1420-95 01955953 1-G-772-1421-95 01955954 1-G-772-1422-95 01955955 1-G-772-1423-95 01955956 1-G-772-1424-95 01955957 1-G-772-1425-95 01955958 1-G-772-1426-95 01955959 1-G-772-1427-95 01955960 1-G-772-1428-95 01955961 1-G-772-1429-95 01955962 1-G-772-1430-95 01955963 1-G-772-1431-95 01955964 1-G-772-1432-95 01955965 1-G-772-1434-95 01955966 1-G-772-1435-95 01955967 1-G-772-1436-95 01955968 1-G-772-1437-95 01955969 1-G-772-1438-95 01955970 1-G-772-1439-95 01955971 1-G-772-1440-95 01955972 1-G-772-1441-95 01955973 1-G-772-1442-95 01955974 1-G-772-1443-95 01955975 1-G-772-1444-95 01955976 1-G-772-1445-95 01955977 1-G-772-1446-95 01955978 1-G-772-1447-95 01955979 1-G-772-1449-95 01955980 1-G-772-1450-95 01955981 1-G-772-1452-95 01955982 1-G-772-1454-95 01955983 1-G-772-1467-95 01955984 1-G-772-1482-95 01955985 1-G-772-1483-95 01955986 1-G-772-1484-95 01955987 1-G-772-1496-95 01955988 1-G-772-1497-95

FN1. The cases being addressed herein are listed in Attachment A to this decision. Eighty-nine cases have individual appeal numbers; twenty cases were consolidated under Appeal No. 01954184; twenty-three other cases were consolidated under Appeal No. 01955046.

FN2. The Commission notes that the agency has accepted several allegations out of the one hundred thirty-two complaints. The allegations accepted for investigation are not at issue in the instant appeals.

FN3. Appellant also filed appeals with the Commission regarding the dismissals, as well as improperly filing complaints regarding the dismissals.

FN4. Appellant disputed the agency's procedure of providing EEO counseling by mail.

FN5. We note, for example, that appellant has eighty-nine complaints presently pending before the agency.