[Redacted], Alonso T., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 22, 2023

Appeal No. 2023000554 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 22, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alonso T.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency. Appeal No. 2023000554 Agency No. DLAN-22-0181 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from an Agency final decision, dated September 26, 2022, dismissing a formal complaint alleging unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Commission accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. BACKGROUND During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Distribution Process Worker for the Agency’s DLA Distribution at the Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. On September 13, 2022, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on sex when, on June 24, 2022, the Agency intentionally caused him a debt and the garnishment of his wages by Defense Finance & Accounting Service. On September 26, 2022, the Agency issued a final decision, and dismissed the formal complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). The Agency reasoned that the monetary dispute raised by Complainant must be resolved through the process under the Debt Collection Act. The Agency found that the subject claim is outside of the EEOC’s jurisdiction. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2023000554 2 Complainant filed the instant appeal. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (Apr. 21, 1994). On appeal, Complainant, through his attorney, argues that the Agency has mischaracterized the formal complaint. Specifically, Complainant argues the Agency intentionally erred in the processing of his Paid Parental Leave paperwork. Complainant also argues that the Agency “wrongfully processed” the paperwork for a female co-worker, but subsequently corrected the co-worker’s paperwork and “refused to correct the error” on his own paperwork. Complainant contends that the claim “has nothing to do with the debt in question” but that the Agency specifically “targeted” him due to his sex. We disagree. A review of the instant record, including the intake form and formal complaint, reflect that the claim raised by Complainant is accurately framed in the Agency’s final decision. In his formal complaint, for example, Complainant plainly alleges that on June 24, 2022, the Agency garnished his wages due to a debt intentionally caused by the Agency. The remedies Complainant requests include having the debt corrected. It is clear that what is under dispute (i.e. whether the debt is valid or an error) and the resolution Complainant seeks are outside of the EEOC’s jurisdiction. The Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711 et seq, mandates that monetary disputes involving an agency of the United States government and any claimed debtor must be resolved through the provisions of the Debt Collection Act. Challenges to an agency's actions under the Debt Collection Act are not within the scope of the EEO complaint process and the Commission's jurisdiction. See Baughman v. Department of Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01900865 (Feb. 26, 1990). The proper forum for Complainant to challenge the propriety of the collection process and validity of his debt is through the administrative process of the Debt Collection Act and not the EEO process. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s dismissal was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED. 2023000554 3 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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). 2023000554 4 COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations February 22, 2023 Date