01a55333_r
12-16-2005
Isaac Taylor, Jr., Complainant, v. Margaret Spellings, Secretary, Department of Education, Agency.
Isaac Taylor, Jr. v. Department of Education
01A55333
December 16, 2005
.
Isaac Taylor, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
Margaret Spellings,
Secretary,
Department of Education,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A55333
Agency No. ED-2005-33-00
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the final
agency decision dated July 12, 2005, dismissing his formal EEO 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.
The record reveals that complainant, a former Deputy Engineering Manager
with the Science Applications International Company, filed a formal
EEO complaint on April 20, 2005, alleging that the agency discriminated
against him on the basis of race (African-American).
In its final decision dated July 12, 2005, the agency framed complainant's
claims as follows:
complainant claimed that "he was treated in a discriminatory manner by
management who[m] engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional actions
including offensive and demeaning language, continuous belligerent and
hostile working environment and slandering remarks."
Further, the agency noted that complainant claimed that on February 25,
2004, complainant claimed that he was converted from temporary employee
to permanent employee with the Science Applications International
Company (SAIC). The agency further noted that complainant claimed that
upon arrival at his post within the agency, he was informed by SAIC
management that he was being placed in the position of Engineering
Manager in addition to his duties and responsibilities as Deputy
Engineering Manager with no additional compensation. The agency noted
that complainant claimed that on August 6, 2004, complainant was informed
by SAIC management that he was being relieved of his duties and title
as Engineering Manager, and that he was being replaced by a white male.
The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation
set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim,
finding that complainant was not a federal employee. The agency stated
that complainant was an employee of SAIC, which was not an entity of
the agency. The agency further stated that SAIC controlled the "means
and manner" of complainant's performance; and paid complainant's salary
and provided him with leave.
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 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(a)
et seq.
The Commission has applied the common law of agency test to determine
whether complainant is an agency employee under Title VII. See Ma
v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01962390 (June
1, 1998) (citing Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al. v. Darden, 503
U.S. 318, 323-24 (1992)). 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 finishes 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 Ma v. Department of Health and Human
Services, supra.
In Ma, the Commission noted that the common-law test contains, �no
shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the
answer...[A]ll of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and
weighed with no one factor being decisive.� Id., (citations omitted).
The Commission in Ma also noted that prior applications of the test
established in Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir. 1979),
using many of the same elements considered under the common law test, was
not appreciably different from the common law of agency test. See Id.
The record in this case contains no information of the relationship
between the agency and SAIC. The record also contains no information
relating to the "means and manner" of complainant's performance, or any
reference to who had the authority to assign complainant assignments.
Given the lack of evidence on these matters, the Commission is unable
to determine whether complainant was an agency employee under Title VII.
We shall remand the matter so that the agency can supplement the record
with evidence addressing the factors set forth in Ma.
Accordingly, the agency's dismissal of the complaint is VACATED and the
complaint is REMANDED to the agency for further processing consistent
with the Order below and applicable regulations.
ORDER
The agency shall conduct a supplemental investigation and supplement the
record with evidence which shows whether complainant was an employee
of the agency focusing on the factors set forth in Ma. Specifically,
the agency shall place in the record a copy of the contract between
the agency and SAIC. Thereafter, the agency shall either issue a final
decision dismissing the complaint or a letter accepting the complaint
for investigation. The supplemental investigation and issuance of the
decision or letter of acceptance must be completed within 30 calendar
days of the date this decision becomes final.
A copy of the agency's letter accepting the complaint for investigation
or a copy of the new decision dismissing the complaint must be sent to
the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (M0701)
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), 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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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
(R0900)
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 (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
December 16, 2005
__________________
Date