Mary C. Fenton, Petitioner,v.Michael O. Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 13, 2007
0320070107 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 13, 2007)

0320070107

09-13-2007

Mary C. Fenton, Petitioner, v. Michael O. Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Mary C. Fenton,

Petitioner,

v.

Michael O. Johanns,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320070107

MSPB No. DC-0752-07-0363-I-1

DECISION

On July 26, 2007, petitioner timely filed a petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) asking for review

of the initial decision which on July 20, 2007, became the final order

of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning her claim of

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), 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.

Petitioner filed a mixed case complaint alleging that she was

discriminated against based on her sex (female), disability (left

upper extremity and reactive airway syndrome), and age (born in 1955)

when she was removed effective May 14, 2005 for medical inability to

perform the duties of her position. The agency issued a decision

finding that petitioner was not discriminated against as alleged.

Thereafter petitioner filed an appeal with the MSPB. Petitioner did

not attach with her appeal an associated MSPB form designed for making

claims of discrimination, but made reference that her case was mixed.

She made other references to the above bases of discrimination during

the processing of her appeal. The AJ's summary of the issues in the

pre-hearing conference did not mention any discrimination claims nor

indicate petitioner knowingly waived them. She was pro se during the

processing of her appeal at the MSPB.

Following a hearing, the MSPB issued an initial decision upholding the

charge that petitioner was medically unable to perform the duties of

her position and upholding the removal. In finding that the removal

was reasonable and promoted the efficiency of the service, the initial

decision, which later became final, approvingly cited testimony that

the agency made a comprehensive search for vacancies at the agency and

was unsuccessful in finding any other position for which petitioner was

qualified and could perform efficiently and safely. The decision did

not explicitly address any of petitioner's discrimination claims.

On petition, petitioner raises her discrimination claims.1 The agency

replies that at the hearing the MSPB in effect addressed petitioner's

discrimination claims and found no discrimination.

EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over

mixed case complaints on which the MSPB has issued a decision that

makes determinations on allegations of discrimination.2 29 C.F.R. �

1614.303 et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of

the MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a

correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy

directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

Based upon a thorough review of the record, it is the decision of

the Commission to concur with the final decision of the MSPB finding

no discrimination. The Commission finds that the MSPB's decision

constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules, regulations,

and policies governing this matter and is supported by the evidence in

the record as a whole.3

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0900)

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,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within

thirty (30) calendar days of 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

September 13, 2007

__________________

Date

1 She also raises reprisal for EEO activity. Because petitioner did

not raise reprisal before the MSPB, we are without jurisdiction to

address reprisal. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

2 Based on our review of the record, we find petitioner, who was pro

se, claimed during the MSPB appeal process in various ways that she was

discriminated against based on her sex, age and disabilities when she was

removed, and hence raised these affirmative defenses. Given that the

MSPB does not indicate anywhere that petitioner waived these defenses,

we agree with the agency's assessment that in effect the MSPB found no

discrimination. The MSPB's decision improperly failed to give petitioner

petition rights to the EEOC.

3 For purposes of analysis only, we assume without finding that petitioner

is an individual with a disability. 29 C.F.R. � 1630.2(g)(1).

??

??

??

??

2

0320070107

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0320070107