Deborah K. Baker, Complainant,v.John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 5, 2011
0120110765 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 5, 2011)

0120110765

10-05-2011

Deborah K. Baker, Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.




Deborah K. Baker,

Complainant,

v.

John M. McHugh,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120110765

Agency No. ARUSAR10AUG03508

DECISION

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

decision dated October 19, 2010, dismissing her 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.

Upon review, the Commission finds that Complainant's complaint was

properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure

to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked

as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at the Agency’s Immunizations

Clinic facility in Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.

On September 7, 2010, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging

that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of sex

(female) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, on June 7, 2010, she was terminated

from her position by Nursing Enterprises, Inc. (NEI).

In its final decision, the Agency determined that as a contract

employee of the Agency, Complainant did not have standing as an

"employee" covered by the 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 EEO complaint process.

In a subsequent statement on appeal, the Agency details why it determined

that Complainant’s claim is not covered. The Agency maintains that

Complainant worked for NEI, and it was that organization who determined

the services required and employment requirements for Complainant. It

represented that NEI, not the Agency, also determined her rate of pay and

withheld social security taxes and other taxes from Complainant's pay.

The Agency also did not provide medical insurance for temporary or

long-term disabilities to Complainant. Further, LEI, not the Agency,

approved leave requests and provided her a performance evaluation.

The Agency notes that Complainant admits, in her pleadings, to being a

civilian contract LPN, and admits to being terminated by a NEI contractor

on June 7, 2010. Finally, Complainant has filed an EEOC private sector

charge of discrimination against NEI. The Agency maintains that it did

not employ Complainant and was not her employer. Complainant does not

counter the Agency’s position in her appeal statement.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Before the Commission or the Agency can consider whether the agency has

discriminated against complainant in violation of Title VII, it first

must determine whether complainant is an agency employee or applicant

for employment within the meaning of Section 717(a) of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a).

Section 717(a) provides in relevant part that "[a]ll personnel actions

affecting employees or applicants for employment . . . in executive

agencies . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on race,

color, religion, sex, or national origin." Thus, Section 717(a) expressly

prohibits discrimination by federal agencies against "employees" and

"applicants for employment." Section 717(a) does not expressly prohibit

discrimination by federal agencies against independent contractors.

Therefore, complainant is protected from discrimination by the agency

by Title VII only if she may be deemed an employee of the agency or

applicant for employment with the agency.

The Commission has held that it will apply the common law of agency

test in order to determine whether the complainants should be deemed to

be “employees” under section 717 of Title VII. Specifically, the

Commission will look to the following non-exhaustive list of factors:

(1) the extent of the employer's right to control the means and manner of

the worker's performance; (2) the kind of occupation, with reference to

whether the work is usually done under the direction of a supervisor or

is done by a specialist without supervision; (3) the skill required in

the particular occupation; (4) whether the "employer" or the individual

furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (5) the length of time

the individual has worked; (6) the method of payment, whether by time or

by the job; (7) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated,

i.e., by one or both parties, with or without notice and explanation; (8)

whether annual leave is afforded; (9) whether the work is an integral part

of the business of the "employer"; (10) whether the worker accumulates

retirement benefits; (11) whether the "employer" pays social security

taxes; and (12) the intention of the parties. See Zheng v. Dep’t of

Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962389 (June 1, 1998);

Ma v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962390

(June 1, 1998) (citing Nationwide Mutual Insur. Co. et. al. v. Darden,

503 U.S. 318, 323-24 (1992)).

Based on the legal standards and criteria set for herein, we find that

the Agency did not exercise sufficient control over the complainant’s

position to qualify as the employer or joint employer of complainant.

See generally, Baker v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A45313

(March 16, 2006). Accordingly, we find that the agency’s dismissal

was appropriate and we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.

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 (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 (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

October 5, 2011

__________________

Date

2

0120110765

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120110765