0120090925
05-21-2009
Leslie G. Yaeger, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Leslie G. Yaeger,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090925
Hearing No. 443-2008-00078X
Agency No. 4J-530-0004-08
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the agency's final order
dated November 12, 2008, fully implementing the decision of an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ) to dismiss his complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
In his complaint, complainant alleged that he was discriminated against
based on his disability (left hand/arm), age (59), and reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when on September 26, 2007, he was not selected
for a promotion to the position of lead automotive technician, Level 8.
Following an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an
EEOC AJ.
While this case was pending before an AJ, the AJ adjudicated complainant's
prior complaint alleging discrimination when on or about August 13,
2005, he was not selected for promotion to the above position. On July
16, 2008, the AJ found discrimination thereon.1 On October 3, 2008,
the parties settled in writing all litigation on this earlier claim.
The agency agreed to provide complainant "make whole relief" as set
forth in the AJ's decision dated July 16, 2008; to pay him back pay and
other benefits as if he was selected for lead automotive technician,
level 8, effective August 13, 2005, with all career ladder promotions,
step increases, and other upgrades to which he would be entitled if he
performed fully successfully; to promote complainant to the position of
lead automotive technician, Level 9; and to pay $3,500 in compensatory
damages and $30,000 in attorney fees. The settlement agreement explicitly
did not resolve the instant complaint before us.
Thereafter, the agency filed a motion with the AJ to dismiss the instant
complaint. It argued that the two complaints about complainant not
being selected for the position of lead automotive technician, level 8,
on August 13, 2005, and September 26, 2007, stated the same claim, and
the AJ already ordered the agency to offer promote complainant to lead
automotive technician, level 8. In response to the agency's motion to
dismiss, complainant argued the complaints were not identical because
they involved two separate non-promotions, and his stress increased.
On October 31, 2008, the AJ dismissed the complaint for being moot.
Recounting the two claims referencing the July 16, 2008 decision, the
AJ reasoned that complainant had already been granted make whole relief
for the damages he suffered. The agency then issued a final action
implementing the AJ's decision.
On appeal, complainant argues that his previous complaint does not
encompass the later complaint, and he suffered additional pain and
suffering for which he has not been compensated. In response to
complainant's appeal, the agency argues that it correctly implemented
the AJ's decision of mootness.
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(5) provides for
the dismissal of a complaint when the issues raised therein are moot.
To determine whether the issues raised in complainant's complaint are
moot, the factfinder must ascertain whether (1) it can be said with
assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged
violation will recur; and (2) interim relief or events have completely
and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged discrimination.
See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Kuo
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970343 (July 10, 1998).
When such circumstances exist, no relief is available and no need for
a determination of the rights of the parties is presented.
The first prong above has been met. But we disagree that interim relief
or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the
alleged discrimination. The AJ's July 16, 2008, decision on the first
non-promotion ordered make whole relief, and this was reaffirmed in the
settlement agreement. Arguably, complainant is not entitled to additional
make whole equitable relief (back pay) for the second non-promotion
because the back pay periods for both non-promotions would cease at
the same time, i.e., when complainant started working as a level 9,
and the back pay period on the first non-promotion started earlier.
However, complainant requested compensatory damages for the second
non-promotion. For the first non-promotion, the parties agreed to the
payment of $3,500 in compensatory damages via a settlement agreement
which explicitly did not resolve the instant complaint.
Where a complainant has requested compensatory damages, they must be
addressed by the agency. See Routson v. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, EEOC Request No. 05970388 (March 18, 1999).
Should complainant prevail on the instant complaint, the possibility
of an award of compensatory damages exists. See Glover v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01930696 (December 9, 1993).
Complainant could suffer additional compensatory damages for a second
discriminatory non-promotion.
As the agency failed to address the issue of compensatory damages
for the instant complaint, we find that the dismissal for mootness
was improper.
ORDER
The agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the appropriate EEOC
Field or District Office a request for a hearing within fifteen (15)
calendar days after this decision becomes final. The hearing request
must include a brief explanation that it is being made pursuant to
this decision, and be accompanied with the complaint, investigative
files, and hearing record, and a copy of this decision. Thereafter,
an Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the complaint in
accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the agency shall issue a final
action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
The agency shall provide a copy of the hearing request to the Compliance
Officer at the address set forth below, with a copy to complainant.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)
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 (M1208)
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 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 (R0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 21, 2009
__________________
Date
1 The record does not contain a copy of the AJ's decision. According to
complainant, the AJ's finding of discrimination was based on age and
reprisal.
??
??
??
??
2
0120090925
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120090925