01984339
08-20-1999
Carlos F. Cato, Appellant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Carlos F. Cato v. Department of the Army
01984339
August 20, 1999
Carlos F. Cato, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01984339
) Agency No. 9707H2470
Louis Caldera, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Army, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
The appellant timely filed an appeal with this Commission from a final
decision, dated April 17, 1998, which the agency issued pursuant to EEOC
Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a). The Commission accepts the appellant's
appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.
After a review of the record, including the appellant's appeal
submissions, the Commission finds that the agency properly dismissed
the appellant's complaint as stating the same claim as raised in prior
complaints, that is, an alleged unlawful denial of employment benefits,
i.e., monetary and formal recognition for his suggestions (EEO Database
and Quickstat Software System) made in 1989 and 1990, which were the
subject of Cato v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01966596 (May
21, 1998). The appellant was required to raise all of his contentions
regarding the alleged discrimination and retaliation, alleged subsequent
interference with the EEO process, and alleged false statements by agency
officials, in the proceedings which resolved the prior complaints.
Therefore, the Commission affirms the dismissal of the appellant's
complaint, albeit solely on the ground that it states the same claims
that have been decided by the Commission. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a).
In so doing, the Commission advises the agency that when dismissing
a complaint on the ground that it states the same claim as raised in
a prior complaint, the agency need not, and indeed, should not address
the merits of the appellant's complaint. See Cobb v. Department of the
Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (March 13, 1997), and cases cited
therein at n.3.
As to the appellant's contentions on appeal regarding a prior settlement
agreement he had had with the agency, the Commission previously found
that the agreement was void because there had not been a meeting of minds
regarding the parties' use of the term "audit" in the agreement. Cato
v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01952260 (June 28, 1995).
Therefore, the Commission ordered reinstatement of the complaints that
had been the subject of the void agreement (agency nos. 92-08-0005 and
92-08-0006). Id. The Administrative Judge's decision on those complaints
was the subject of the Commission's decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01966596,
supra.
CONCLUSION
For the sole reason stated above, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's
dismissal of the appellant's April 19, 1997 complaint.
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:
August 20, 1999
______________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations