Maria Anaya, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 28, 2001
01a00059 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 28, 2001)

01a00059

03-28-2001

Maria Anaya, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Maria Anaya v. United States Postal Service

01A00059

03-28-01

.

Maria Anaya,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A00059

Agency No. 1F-901-0180-99

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision (FAD) dated September 29, 1999, concerning her complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal was postmarked September 29, 1999.

Accordingly, the appeal is timely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a),

and is accepted in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed complainant's

complaint on the basis that the identical issue was previously decided

by the agency.

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 1999, complainant filed a complaint alleging that she was

discriminated against because of her race (Hispanic), color (Brown),

national origin (Mexican American), sex (Female), age (7/15/49), and

reprisal (prior EEO activity pursuant to Title VII and the ADEA) when

she was continuously denied a Transitional Employee (TE) appointment.

Specifically, complainant indicated that her supervisor told her that she

would not be considered for the TE position because if she filed [EEO]

complaints as a Casual Employee, then she would probably do so as a TE.

On appeal, the complainant alleges that the agency unilaterally dropped

her retaliation claim, and incorrectly found that her current claim is

the same as claim #: 1F-901-1795-93, which she filed in 1993.

In the FAD, the agency dismissed complainant's claim pursuant to EEOC

Regulation 29 C.F.R � 1614.107(a), because the complainant stated the

same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the agency

or the Commission. The agency indicated that the issue before the

Commission was accepted and assigned for investigation on November

2, 1993. On December 6, 1994, the complainant and the agency entered

into a settlement agreement which the complainant subsequently alleged

had been breached. The agency issued a final decision on August 3,

1998, determining that the settlement agreement had not been breached.

The agency's records show that the complainant received this decision

on August 6, 1998, but did not appeal the decision.

FINDING AND ANALYSIS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R � 1614.107(a)(1) provides that an agency shall

dismiss a complaint that states the same claim that is pending before

or has been decided by the agency or Commission.

A review of the record supports the agency's finding that complainant

raised a claim of discrimination on the same bases as noted above in 1993.

To the extent that complainant had related her current claim to her 1993

claims, the Commission notes that the 1993 claims were settled in December

1994 through a settlement agreement offering the complainant a future TE

appointment. In April 1998, the complainant alleged that the agency had

not complied with the terms of the EEO Settlement. On August 3, 1998,

the agency issued a decision indicating that it was in compliance with

the EEO Settlement. Specifically, the agency pointed to the fact that

in July 1998, the complainant was offered a TE Window Clerk appointment

which she declined because she had another job and had to take care of a

sick child. Complainant indicated that she could only accept a position

on tour 1 or 3. The agency indicated that the settlement agreement did

not specify a particular tour or work location, and as such, had satisfied

the terms of the agreement. The record indicated that the complainant

received this decision on August 6, 1998, and was notified that she had

the right to appeal the agency decision. The record also shows that

complainant did not appeal the decision. Accordingly, complainant cannot

now make a breach allegation regarding the 1994 settlement agreement.

Complainant also alleges that the agency improperly dismissed her

current claim of discrimination by relating it to her 1993 complaint.

The complainant has submitted evidence on appeal that she initiated

EEO Counselor contact on May 26, 1999 about a incident that occurred

on May 14, 1999. After a careful review, we find that the agency's

decision that the claims in the instant appeal regarding the May 14,

1999 incident is subject to dismissal because it is the same as the 1993

complaint is incorrect. Identical does not mean similar. The Commission

has consistently held that in order for a complaint to be dismissed as

identical, the elements of the complaint must be identical to the elements

of the prior complaint in time, place, incident, and parties. See Jackson

v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No 01955890 (April 5,1996).

Although complainant previously filed a claim of discrimination on the

same bases as in the present complaint, the prior complaint involved

different incidents. Those incidents arose in 1993. On May 26, 1999,

complainant filed a new claim of discrimination alleging that on May

14, 1999, other employees were awarded TE positions, but that she was

denied an appointment. Moreover, complainant alleged that she was told

by the Acting Supervisor that she did not get the position because of

her prior EEO activity. The record shows that the dates of the alleged

discrimination cited in her prior complaints are not the same as in

the current complaint. Therefore, the matter raised in the instant

complaint is not identical to the claims complainant raised in her

earlier complaints. So, even though complainant may not currently

file a claim requesting enforcement of the 1994 settlement agreement,

she can file a new claim of discrimination if she can show that there

is a new incident of alleged discrimination. Therefore, the agency's

final decision dismissing complainant's complaint was improper.

CONCLUSION

The Commission AFFIRMS the agency finding that it was not in breach of the

1994 settlement agreement. However, we find that the agency's decision

to dismiss complainant's new claim of discrimination on the basis that

it stated a claim previously decided by the agency was improper and is

REVERSED. This claim is REMANDED to the agency for further processing

in accordance with the ORDER below.

ORDER (E0900)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded claim in accordance with

29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant

that it has received the remanded claim within thirty (30) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue

to complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify

complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)

calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter

is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the complainant requests a

final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision

within sixty (60) days of receipt of complainant's request.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)

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)(Supp. V 1993). 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 (M0900)

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

__03-28-01________________

Date