Darvin G. Bennett, Complainant,v.Mike Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 20, 2011
0120111198 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 2011)

0120111198

05-20-2011

Darvin G. Bennett, Complainant, v. Mike Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.




Darvin G. Bennett,

Complainant,

v.

Mike Donley,

Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120111198

Agency No. 2A1L10001

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's

final decision dated November 23, 2010, dismissing a formal complaint of

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.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Complainant was employed as an Equal

Opportunity Specialist at the Agency’s 375 Air Mobility Wing Equal

Opportunity Office, Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.

On June 14, 2010, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact.

Informal efforts to resolve her concerns were unsuccessful.

On September 7, 2010, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint.

Therein, Complainant claimed that the Agency subjected him to

discrimination in reprisal for prior protected activity when:

a. on January 16, 2010, he was removed as an Equal Opportunity Director

(YC-02) and reassigned as Equal Opportunity Specialist (YA-02);

b. on December 14, 2009, two named Colonels [(C1) and (C2)] requested

a Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) with the intention of deterring others

from engaging in protected activity;

c. on December 18, 2009, C1 and C2 did not allow him to address

corrections for problems found during the SAV;

d. on January 14, 2010, C1 called a named Equal Opportunity Director

to a meeting to notify her that she would assume the Equal Opportunity

Director position effective January 18, 2010, sending a chilling effect;

e. in February 2010, C1 and C2 did not give him credit for

implementing, directing and administering the National Security Personnel

System (NSPS) reconsideration process;

f. in November 2009, C2 directed him to change an NSPS rating for a

subordinate from “3” to “4;”

g. in February 2010, C2 rated his NSPS annual rating a “3” and

added negative comments in its appraisal;

h. in October 2009, the 375th Air Mobility Wing/Judge Advocate Deputy

visited his witness in a complaint and ordered the witness to keep and

not delete any email correspondence from him;

i. in June 2010, he learned that in February 2010, C1 and C2

authorized a named Lieutenant Colonel to change an award package from

an Air Force Achievement [Medal]” to an Air Force “Accommodation

” Medal for a Technical Sergeant in the Equal Opportunity Office;

j. on June 14, 2010, he realized that the NSPS to General Schedule

(GS) conversion would result in him being demoted to a GS-11 from an

original GS-12.

In its November 23, 2010 final decision, the Agency dismissed claim

a – g and i – j on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact,

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency determined that

Complainant’s initial EEO Counselor contact occurred on June 14, 2010,

which it found to be beyond the 45-day limitation period in regard to the

matters raised in claims a – g and i – j. The Agency dismissed claim

h for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1).

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant argues that claims a – g and i – j were timely

raised with an EEO Counselor because it is part of a harassment claim.

Specifically, Complainant argues that he initiated EEO Counselor contact

on June 14, 2010 when “I became aware of the RMOs actions were both

appealable and discriminatory and took action to correct this injustice

and actions taken against me.”

Further, Complainant argues that in regard to claim h, the Judge Advocate

Deputy’s “conversation with, visit to, and letter given to my witness

did in fact send the ‘chilling effect’ to my witness.’”

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Claims a – g and i - j

The Agency improperly dismissed claims a – g and i - j on the grounds

of untimely EEO Counselor contact. The record reflects that Complainant

initiated EEO Counselor contact on June 14, 2010. The Commission has held

that “[b]ecause the incidents that make up a hostile work environment

claim collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice, the entire

claim is actionable, as long, as at least one incident that is part of

the claim occurred within the filing period. This includes incidents

that occurred outside the filing period that the [Complainant] knew or

should have known were actionable at the time of their occurrence.”

EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 2, Threshold Issues at 2 – 75 (revised

July 21, 2005) (citing National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,

536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002)).

The record reflects that various incidents comprising Complainant’s

harassment/hostile work environment claim occurred within the 45-day time

period preceding Complainant’s June 14, 2010 EEO Counselor contact,

as discussed above. Because a fair reading of the record reflects that

the matter identified in the subject claims are part of that harassment

claim, we find that the Agency improperly dismissed them on the grounds

of untimely EEO Counselor contact.

Claim h

The Agency improperly fragmented Complainant’s claim of ongoing

discriminatory harassment/hostile work environment by dismissing claim h

for failure to state a claim. A fair reading of the matters identified

in those claims reflect that Complainant claims that he was subjected

to a series of related harassing incidents from October 2009 through

June 2010. Moreover, Complainant reiterates on appeal that he was the

victim of harassment as reflected in these incidents. These matters,

taken together, state an actionable claim of harassment. By alleging

a pattern of harassment regarding claim h, Complainant has stated a

cognizable claim under the EEOC regulations. See Cervantes v. USPS,

EEOC Request No. 05930303 (November 12, 1993).

Accordingly, we REVERSE the Agency’s final decision dismissing

Complainant’s formal complaint, defined herein as a harassment claim,

and we REMAND this matter to the Agency for further processing in

accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER (E0610)

The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claim (harassment/hostile

work environment) in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 et seq.

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 (K0610)

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 77960, Washington, DC

20013. 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.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0610)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive

for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of

Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box

77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. 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).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610)

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 (Z0610)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

May 20, 2011

__________________

Date

2

***Appeal number TX***

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120111198

7

0120111198