Francisco Padilla, Jr., Petitioner,v.Alphonso Jackson, Acting Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 16, 2004
04A40016 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 16, 2004)

04A40016

06-16-2004

Francisco Padilla, Jr., Petitioner, v. Alphonso Jackson, Acting Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.


Francisco Padilla, Jr. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

04A40016

June 16, 2004

.

Francisco Padilla, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

Alphonso Jackson,

Acting Secretary,

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Agency.

Petition No. 04A40016

Appeal No. 01986538

Agency No. FH9501

Hearing No. 100-96-7134X

CLARIFICATION OF A DECISION ON A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT

On our own motion, the Commission issues a clarification of its decision

in Francisco Padilla, Jr. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

EEOC Appeal No. 04A40016 (June 16, 2004). On March 10, 2004, the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) docketed a petition

for enforcement to examine the enforcement of an order set forth in

Francisco Padilla, Jr. v. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

EEOC Appeal No. 04A20031 (September 30, 2003). Petitioner alleged

that the agency failed to fully comply with the Commission's order: (1)

regarding job placement with the agency; and (2) regarding the back pay

portion of the order. In our prior decision, the Commission concurred

with the agency's contention that it had offered petitioner, in good

faith, three (3) positions which were substantially equivalent to the

original Director, Multifamily Housing (DMH) position that complainant

applied for. As such, we found that the agency had complied with the

portion of the Commission's initial order which addressed job placement.

In addition, we concluded that the agency fully complied with the

Commission's order to supply petitioner with the documents sent to

the Commission's Compliance Officer regarding back pay. We therefore

concluded that the agency fully complied with the Commission's order

for relief in EEOC Appeal No. 01986538.

However, in EEOC Petition No. 04A40016, the Commission noted that the

agency stated that it would keep the three (3) positions previously

offered to petitioner open. As a result, we �requested� that the agency

keep these positions open, and give complainant thirty (30) days from the

date the decision was received to either accept or decline the positions

offered by the agency. Subsequently, neither petitioner nor his counsel

received copies of EEOC Petition No. 04A40016. In addition, counsel

for the agency verbally questioned that portion of the decision which

discussed keeping the offered positions open and allowing petitioner

time to accept or reject them. Due to the questions of the parties,

we have decided to issue this clarification of our decision on petition

for enforcement.

Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that by letter to

petitioner's counsel dated March 12, 2004, the agency's Director,

Resource Management Division (�the Director�) stated that the offered

positions remained open and available, but could not continue to remain

open without being detrimental to the agency. Thus, the Director stated

that the positions offered to petitioner were the agency's final offer,

and if petitioner reconsiders his initial declination of the offers, he

was to contact the agency no later than ten (10) days from receipt of the

letter. We note that petitioner filed his petition for enforcement with

the Commission on March 10, 2004. Nevertheless, we find after reviewing

the record that the agency offered petitioner three (3) substantially

equivalent positions to the DMH position, and petitioner declined each

offer. Following the Director's letter of March 12, 2004, the agency did

not offer to leave the positions offered to petitioner open indefinitely,

and petitioner's filing of the request for a petition for enforcement did

not relieve petitioner of his obligation to inform the agency if he had

decided to accept one of the offered positions by the date indicated by

the Director. As such, we find that the agency has fully complied with

the Commission's order in EEOC Appeal No. 01986538 to offer petitioner

a substantially equivalent position to the DMH position.<1>

STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS - ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further

right of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.

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

June 16, 2004

__________________

Date

1 The Commission notes that due to the issuance of this clarification,

petitioner is not a prevailing party in EEOC Petition No. 04A40016,

and attorney's fees are not warranted in conjunction with that request

for petition for enforcement.