Patricia Wesley-McKay, Appellant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 16, 1999
01983357 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 16, 1999)

01983357

06-16-1999

Patricia Wesley-McKay, Appellant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Patricia Wesley-McKay v. Department of the Army

01983357

June 16, 1999

Patricia Wesley-McKay, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01983357

) Agency No. F09704H0010

Louis Caldera, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Army, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On March 24, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from a final agency decision (FAD) dated March 4, 1998, pertaining to her

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 her complaint, appellant alleged that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of physical disability

(heart condition), age (45), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when

she was not selected for a DA Intern, GS-343-05/07, Management Analyst

position, Manpower and Management Branch, Resource Management Office

(Management Analyst position).

The record discloses that another employee (CW1) also filed an EEO

complaint concerning her non-selection for the same Management Analyst

position.

The agency dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation

29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h), for failure to accept a certified offer of full

relief. Specifically, on December 18, 1997, the agency sent appellant

a settlement offer whereby appellant and CW1 would be provided the

opportunity to compete for an identical Management Analyst position, and

the selectee would be provided back pay, interest, and all other benefits

due had she been selected for the original Management Analyst position

vacancy. The agency specifically noted that appellant was at that time

unrepresented by an attorney and had not requested compensatory damages;

accordingly, the agency determined that attorney's fees and compensatory

damages need not be addressed by the settlement offer. On January 23,

1998, appellant sent the agency a letter refusing the settlement offer.

Notwithstanding appellant's refusal of the settlement offer, the agency

carried out the selection process contemplated therein and awarded CW1

the newly-created Management Analyst position. On March 4, 1998, the

agency issued the FAD dismissing appellant's complaint pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(h).

The Commission notes that in the attachment to her formal complaint

appellant alleged that the agency's actions were "retaliation against

[her] to inflict hurt and harm by denying [her] the opportunity to

enhance my career with the federal government." Additionally, the record

discloses that on February 16, 1998, appellant, through her newly-acquired

attorney of record, submitted a request for compensatory damages in the

amount of $300,000 for the "severe pain and suffering caused [her] by the

[agency's] unfair treatment practices and discrimination against [her]."

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h) allows an agency to dismiss a

complaint when the complainant refuses to accept an offer of settlement.

However, the settlement offer must have been a certified offer of

full relief and the agency must have complied with certain procedural

requirements. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(h). In the case at hand, the

agency presented the offer to appellant in writing, and informed her

that it would dismiss her complaint if she failed to accept the offer.

In addition, the agency had the appropriate official certify that the

offer provided full relief. See Wrenn v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs,

918 F.2d 1073 (2nd Cir. 1990).

The remaining issue to be determined is whether the agency's offer

actually provided appellant with full relief. Full relief is defined

as that relief which would have been available to a complainant if

she had prevailed on every issue in her complaint. See Albemarle Paper

Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975). In Albemarle, the court held that the

purpose of Title VII is to make victims whole, that is, to place them, as

near as possible, in the situation they would have occupied if the wrong

complained of had not occurred. Id, at 418-419. Thus, an offer of full

relief must be evaluated in terms of whether it includes everything to

which an appellant would have been entitled if there had been a finding

of unlawful discrimination. Merriell v. Department of Transportation,

EEOC Request No. 05890596 (August 10, 1989).

The Commission has held that an agency must address the issue of

compensatory damages when a complainant shows objective evidence

that she has incurred compensatory damages, and that the damages are

related to the alleged discrimination. Jackson v. USPS, EEOC Appeal

No. 01923399 (November 12, 1992), request to reopen denied, EEOC

Request No. 05930306 (February 1, 1993). Moreover, the Commission

has clearly held that a complainant may raise a claim for compensatory

damages at any time in the administrative process up to, and including,

the appeal stage, but not thereafter. Simpkins v. USPS, EEOC Request

No. 05940887 (September 28, 1995). Should appellant prevail on this

complaint, the possibility of an award of compensatory damages exists.

See Glover v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01930696 (December 9, 1993).

Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint

was improper, and is hereby REVERSED. The complaint is REMANDED to the

agency for further processing in accordance with this decision and the

Order below.

ORDER (E1092)

The agency is ORDERED to process the remanded allegations in accordance

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

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

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

appellant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify appellant

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 appellant requests a final decision

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

(60) days of receipt of appellant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to appellant and a copy

of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights

must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

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 appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The appellant 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. ��1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the appellant 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. ��1614.408 and 1614.409. 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

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

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. It is the position of the Commission that 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. You should be aware, however, that courts in some

jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner

suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS from the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your

civil action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN

THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision

or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the

jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

June 16, 1999

____________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations