05990229_r
12-11-2001
Leonard A. Mobley, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.
Leonard A. Mobley v. Department of Transportation
05990229
December 11, 2001
.
Leonard A. Mobley,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Agency.
Request No. 05990229
Appeal No. 01980995
Agency No. DOT-6-97-6112
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Leonard
A. Mobley v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01980995
(November 6, 1998). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where
the requesting party demonstrates 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.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
According to the record, the parties executed a settlement agreement on
July 2, 1993, which provided, in pertinent part, that the agency was to
place complainant in a certain position. On March 21, 1997, complainant
claimed breach due to his reassignment to another position, as well as
the agency's failure to comply with all other terms of the agreement.
On September 8, 1997, complainant filed a separate formal complaint
which is the subject of the previous decision, alleging discrimination
on the bases of race and in reprisal for prior protected activity,
which set forth numerous claims, including the reassignment/breach claim.
The agency accepted the complaint for investigation, except for the breach
claim, which it dismissed on the grounds that the same claim had been
raised in the context of complainant's previously filed breach claim.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
On appeal, complainant acknowledged that the breach claim and the
discrimination claim were both predicated on the reassignment; however,
complainant argued they are nonetheless separate actionable claims because
they are based on different causes of action. The Commission rejected
this argument finding that both claims address the same matter regardless
of the cause of action asserted, and affirmed the agency's dismissal.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant continues to argue
that his breach claim and his discrimination complaint concerning the
reassignment are separate claims, and requests that the Commission
reverse its decision to affirm the agency's dismissal.
According to Commission records, the agency denied complainant's breach
claim, and complainant filed an appeal from that determination with
the Commission. In Mobley v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal
No. 01986729 (February 15, 2000), the Commission reversed the agency's
determination that it had complied with the settlement agreement.<1> In
reaching this determination, the Commission observed that a provision in
a settlement agreement requiring an agency to assign a complainant to a
certain position does not forever bind the agency to keep the complainant
in that position. See Elliott v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05950615 (Decemer 13, 1995). Nonetheless, the Commission determined
that the reassignment in the instant case did constitute a breach because
another provision (provision 6) of the settlement agreement provided
that in the event that the agency rescinded any action specified by the
settlement agreement, for reasons not attributable to complainant,
his underlying complaint must be reinstated upon complainant's
written request. Finding that the reassignment was not attributable
to complainant's conduct, and his complaint was not reinstated upon his
written request, the Commission found breach of the settlement agreement
and ordered reinstatement of the underlying complaint.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration,
the previous decision, and the entire record, and for the reasons
set forth above, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet
the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the
Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01980995
remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request
for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'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
December 11, 2001
__________________
Date
1In his request for reconsideration, complainant argues that the
Commission acted improperly by affirming the dismissal of the reassignment
claim because the agency dismissed his breach claim based on untimeliness,
thereby precluding a merits adjudication of the reassignment claim under
either action. However, as set forth herein, on appeal, the Commission
reversed the agency's �dismissal� of the breach claim, and reinstated
the underlying complaint.