Yuri J. Stoyanov,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal Nos. 0120110398, 0120110400,
0120110401, 0120110402,
0120110403, 0120110404
Hearing Nos. 531-2010-00072X, et al.
Agency Nos. 08-00167-02685, 08-00167-03202,
09-00167-00900, 09-00167-01370,
09-00167-00755, 08-00167-01397,
08-00167-02219
DECISION
On October 11, 2010, Complainant filed six appeals from the Agency’s
September 10, 2010, final decisions concerning his equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaints alleging 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., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
The Commission accepts the appeals as timely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.405(a). We have exercised our discretion to consolidate these
appeals for joint processing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.606. For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decisions.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues presented are whether the Administrative Judge properly
dismissed Complainant’s hearing requests, and whether the Agency
properly found that Complainant had not established that he had been
discriminated against.
BACKGROUND
Complainant’s complaints
At the time of events giving rise to these complaints, Complainant was
employed as a Scientist, ND-1310-IV, at the Agency’s Naval Surface
Warfare Center in Carderock, Maryland. Each of Complainant’s EEO
complaints allege that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases
of national origin (Russian), age (year of birth 1955), and in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity arising under Title VII and the ADEA.
On April 19, 2008, Complainant filed complaint #1 (Agency
No. 08-00167-01397, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110403), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. in March 2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to a ND-05
(temporary) Deputy T&E Program Manager position under certificate number
NE8-NDXXXX-05-4G843646 for PMS-450 at the Washington Navy Yard;
2. in March 2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to a ND-05
(temporary) SDM LFTNE Program Manager position under certificate number
NE8-NDXXXX-05-4G843607 for PMS-398 at the Washington Navy Yard; and
3. in March 2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted
to a ND-05 Program Manager position under certificate number
NE8-NDXXXX-05-4G862587-C-65 in Code 241.
By letter dated May 16, 2008, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
additional claim in complaint #1 that in March 2008, management
failed to remove the Agency Counsel from assignment to his EEO cases,
citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as a claim that had been raised
in previous complaints, citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8), that it
alleged dissatisfaction with the EEO process, and citing 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.107(a)(9), for abuse of process.
On July 24, 2008, Complainant filed complaint #2 (Agency
No. 08-00167-02219, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110404), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. in May and June 2008, he learned he was not assigned, selected,
or promoted to various ND-05 Manager, Program Manager, and/or Engineer
positions (13 in total) in various organizations at the Agency;
2. on May 5, 2008, he was issued a Letter of Proposed Suspension for
14 calendar days, which resulted in a decision letter issued June 23,
2008, and a suspension effective from June 24 through July 7, 2008;
3. in May 2008, management denied his requests dated May 6, 20, 22,
and 29, 2008 to restore his flexible work schedule; and
4. in May 2008, management failed to remove his chain of
command/responsible management officials, who created a hostile work
environment upon his return from a previous suspension.
On September 5, 2008, Complainant filed complaint #3 (Agency
No. 08-00167-02685, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110398), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. effective July 8, 2008, he was reassigned from the Ship Electromagnetic
Signatures Division, Code 743, to the Structural, Acoustics, and Target
Strength Division, Code 722, and management did not reverse their decision
from June 2008 to reassign him;
2. from June 2008 through August 2008, management did not reverse their
decision not to put him back on a flexible work schedule;
3. in June 2008, management did not respond to his requests with regard
to his suspension, position reassignment, flexible work schedule, and
official time;
4. in July/August 2008, management denied his requests for an office
with a thermostat after he was moved to a “closet” in June 2008;
5. in July 2008, management denied his request to telework three days
a week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday);
6. in July 2008, management denied his request to use an alternate
printer, copy machine, and facsimile machine when the assigned equipment
was out of order when he was completing his EEO complaint work; and
7. in June and July 2008, he learned he was not assigned, selected,
or promoted to various ND-05 Manager, and/or Engineer positions (three
in total) in various organizations at the Agency.
By letter dated September 30, 2008, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
claims in complaint #3 that: on June 23, 2008, he was issued a decision
letter suspending him for 14 days, and management did not reverse their
decision; in June and July 2008, management failed to remove restrictions
on his use of official time to work on his EEO complaints; in June 2008,
management failed to remove his chain of command/responsible management
officials to prevent them from creating a hostile work environment; and
he learned that he was not selected, assigned, or promoted to a ND-05
Program Manager position. The Agency dismissed these claims citing 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as claims that had been raised in previous
complaints, and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9), for abuse of process.
On October 8, 2008, Complainant filed complaint #4 (Agency
No. 08-00167-03202, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110398), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. in August 2008, he learned he was not assigned, selected, or promoted
to the ND-05, Code 74 R&D Program Manager position, vacancy announcement
#NE-ND0830-05-04G060315-C-AL-00 in Code 7406;
2. in August 2008, he learned he was not assigned, selected, or
promoted to a temporary ND-05 Technical Project Manager position,
vacancy announcement #NDXXXX-05-04G006956-C in Code 2120;
3. in August/September 2008, management collected three computer memory
sticks from him and would not return them; and
4. in August/September 2008, management failed to return material items
that were removed from his office while he was out of the office for 15
months (February 2007 through May 2008).
By letter dated October 17, 2008, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
additional claims in complaint #4 that: in August 2008, he learned
he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to various ND-05 Program
Manager, and/or Scientist/Engineer positions (three in total) in
various organizations at the Agency. The Agency dismissed two of
the non-selection claims under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), stating
that they failed to state a claim because there was no evidence that
the cited vacancy announcements existed. It dismissed the third
non-selection as the same claim that had been made in complaint #3.
It also cited 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9) as a dismissal basis, abuse
of process, noting that Complainant had a pattern of presenting similar
or identical allegations over the course of his filing (at that time)
over 39 EEO complaints.
Complaints #3 and #4 were consolidated for a joint investigation into
the accepted claims.
On February 3, 2009, Complainant filed complaint #5 (Agency
No. 09-00167-00900, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110400), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. in November 2008, for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 performance
period ending on September 30, 2008, his work accomplishments were
misrepresented, which denied him four “pay points” for the period,
and when he requested reconsideration of his performance evaluation,
it was denied;
2. in November and December 2008, he was ordered not to use his private
e-mail for computer back-up purposes;
3. in October 2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to the
ND-05 Engineer position under certificate number NE8-ND-0801-05-4G130717-C
in Code 2130.
By letter dated March 11, 2009, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
additional claims in complaint #5 that: in November 2008, he requested
a clean copy of his performance form and a copy of his co-workers’
performance forms for the FY2008 period; in October and November
2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to various ND-05
Program Manager, and/or Engineer positions (four in total) in various
organizations at the Agency; in November 2008, management denied his
request to restore his flexible work schedule and assign him an office
with a thermostat/temperature control. The Agency dismissed these
claims citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as claims that had been
raised in previous complaints, or which failed to state a claim; citing
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), as untimely raised with an EEO Counselor,
citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(5) as moot; and citing 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.107(a)(9), for abuse of process.
On March 1, 2009, Complainant filed complaint #6 (Agency
No. 09-00167-00755, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110402), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. in December 2008, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to the
ND-05 Engineer position, VA# NE-8-ND-0830-05-4G162038-C-AL-48 in Code
742; and
2. in December 2008, he was not selected for the TOPSIDE Signature Deputy
Project Management assignment within the Office of the Chief of Naval
Research (ONR).
By letter dated March 24, 2009, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
additional claims in complaint #6 that: in November and December 2008,
and January 2009, he was not assigned, selected, or promoted to various
ND-05 Program Manager, and/or Engineer positions (four in total) in
various organizations at the Agency. The Agency dismissed these claims
citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as claims which failed to state a
claim; citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), as claims untimely raised
with an EEO Counselor; citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(5) as moot;
and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9), for abuse of process.
On April 15, 2009, Complainant filed complaint #7 (Agency
No. 09-00167-01370, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110401), claiming he was
discriminated against when:
1. on February 6, 2009, he was directed to take the Annual Security
Refresher Training;
2. in January and February 2009, his first-level supervisor chastised
and harassed him for staying beyond 1600 hours (4:00 p.m.);
3. on February 10, 2009, he received a Notice of Intent to Suspend
Access to Classified Information and Eligibility for Assignment to a
Sensitive Position;
4. on February 10, 11, 17, and 19, 2009, he requested and was denied
supporting agency documentation and a three-week extension to respond
to the Notice of Intent to Suspend Access to Classified Information and
Eligibility for Assignment to a Sensitive Position;
5. on February 10, 2009, after receiving the Notice of Intent to Suspend
Access to Classified Information and Eligibility for Assignment to a
Sensitive Position, he was provided a police escort from the building,
and his rights were violated by false arrest and unlawful search and
seizure of personal items;
6. on February 13, 2009, his request for Leave Without Pay (LWOP) was
denied verbally, and was denied in writing on February 17, 2009;
7. on February 18, 2009, he was issued the Notice to Indefinitely Suspend
Access to Classified Information and Eligibility for Assignment to a
Sensitive Position;
8. the Commanding Officer failed to respond to his letters dated
February 20 and 25 2009, requesting that the Notice to Indefinitely
Suspend Access to Classified Information and Eligibility for Assignment
to a Sensitive Position be rescinded, supporting documents provided,
an extension to respond to the Notice be granted, and that his request
for LWOP be granted or he be returned to duty; and
9. on February 25, 2009, he learned that he was not selected
for the position of Engineer, ND-05, under vacancy announcement
#NE9-NDXXXX-05-4G237809-S.
By letter dated May 20, 2009, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s
additional claims in complaint #7 that: on September 11, 2008, he was the
victim of computer tampering; on February 12 and 25, 2009 and on March 3,
2009, higher command officials failed to take action regarding his request
to be returned to work or to approve his request for LWOP and to provide
him the agency documents related to the Notice of Intent; and that he was
not selected for the position of Manager, ND-05 under vacancy announcement
#NE6-NDXXXX-05-4G358535C. The Agency dismissed these claims citing 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), as claims which failed to state a claim or
which stated claims which had been raised in previous complaints; citing
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), as untimely raised with an EEO Counselor;
and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(9), for abuse of process.
At the conclusion of the investigations, the Agency provided Complainant
with copies of the reports of investigation and notice of his right to
request hearings before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
requested hearings for each complaint.
The hearings process
Complainant’s hearing requests were filed in November 2008, June 2009,
August 2009, and November 2009. The hearings requests were consolidated
for processing by the same AJ under Hearing Nos. 531-2010-00072X through
531-2010-00078X. On December 23, 2009, the Agency was ordered to produce
the records in all the complaints. On April 15, 2010, the AJ issued the
Acknowledgment and Order, setting out the parameters for the conduct of
the hearing process, directing the parties to commence discovery, and
notifying the parties of the potential that sanctions could be issued
in the event that either party did not comply with the Orders of the AJ.
The AJ assigned to Complainant’s hearing requests had previously been
assigned prior hearing requests of Complainant.1 On April 30, 2010,
the AJ issued a notice entitled Adoption of Previous Orders, in which he
adopted certain Orders previously issued in Hearing Nos. 120-2003-00031X,
120-2003-00387X, 531-2007-0038X and 531-2007-00135X, in which he had
ruled on issues such as the amount of official time to grant Complainant
to work on his EEO complaints, motions previously made by Complainant to
disqualify the Agency Counsel, motions made by Complainant for a change
of venue and of AJ, and various other discovery disputes which had arisen,
as well as on previous motions for sanctions initiated by the parties.
On May 6, 2010, the AJ denied Complainant’s Motions for Change of
Venue, to Disqualify the Agency Counsel, to Compel the Agency to
Audiotape and Transcribe all Future Teleconferences and Hearings,
to Compel Agency Representative to Certify Under Penalty of Perjury
the Content of Agency Correspondence, and to Compel Agency to Send
Confirmation of Every Correspondence Sent to Administrative Judge.
Complainant was admonished not to submit Motions to the Supervisory AJ,
but rather to the AJ assigned to the hearings. Complainant was again
reminded to comply with previous AJ Orders in which he was ordered to
cease his personal attacks on the Agency Counsel, in which he continually
made allegations against the Agency Counsel, accusing him of committing
fraud, suborning of perjury, and other criminal acts, and was ordered to
refile all Motions already submitted and to remove the offending language.
On May 25, 2010, the AJ issued an Order Striking Complainant’s Improper
Motions when he did not do so.
On May 19, 2010, the Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss Complainant’s
complaints due to his “persistent contumacious conduct, violations of
and disdain for EEOC orders, and an abuse of process” which had been
“unabated for seven years.” On May 27, 2010, the Agency filed a
Motion for Sanctions, due to Complainant’s failure to appear for the
scheduled Pre-hearing and Status Conference, and his “contumacious
disrespect and disregard for [the AJ]'s authority.” It requested that
Complainant be assessed the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the
Agency Counsel in appearing at the status conference
On June 8, 2010, the Supervisory AJ issued an Order entitled Order On
Complainant’s Fourth Motion For A Change Of Venue And Opposition To
5/27/10 Motion, in which she denied Complainant’s repeated requests to
recuse the assigned AJ. On June 21, 2010, Complainant filed a Motion to
Reconsider with the Supervisory AJ, in which he again requested a change
of venue so that a new AJ could consider his requests to disqualify
the Agency Counsel. Complainant claimed that the assigned AJ was in
collusion with the Agency Counsel and allowed the Agency Counsel to
engage in fraud, abuse, criminal conduct, deliberate misrepresentation,
fraudulent assertions, and obstruction of justice.
The Agency had served Complainant with its initial discovery requests
on May 5, 2010. Complainant did not respond to the discovery requests.
On June 24, 2010, the Agency filed a Motion to Compel, asking the AJ to
order Complainant to respond to the discovery requests.
On July 9, 2010, the AJ issued an Order of Dismissal of Hearing in
which he dismissed Complainant’s hearing requests with prejudice. The
AJ recounted in detail the contents of many of his previous Orders,
the past behavior of Complainant, and Complainant’s persistent
refusal to comply with the Orders of the AJ. He noted Complainant’s
refusal to refile edited versions of all the Motions he had previously
submitted, so that the Motions would no longer contain the language which
comprised his “baseless accusations” against the Agency Counsel.
He recounted several examples of Complainant’s accusations against
the Agency Counsel, and against the AJ, who he accused of being in
a criminal conspiracy with the Agency Counsel to “deny [him] fair
hearing” and to “dismiss [his] case by fraud.” The AJ stated
that Complainant’s accusations regarding Agency Counsel and the AJ
had already been previously considered in prior Hearings Requests,
in Commission appeals decisions, and by a U.S. District Court judge,
and found to be without merit.
The AJ found that Complainant had demonstrated “willful, disobedient,
contumacious conduct” in his refusal to appear for the in-person
status conference scheduled for May 25, 2010, and that sanctions were
appropriate. He concluded that no less a sanction than the dismissal
of Complainant’s hearings requests would be effective in controlling
the proceedings before him. The AJ did deny the Agency’s request
to assess Complainant the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the
Agency for the status conference at which Complainant did not appear.
Rather than dismiss Complainant’s complaints in their entirety, however,
as requested by the Agency, the AJ remanded the complaints to the Agency
for decisions on the record.
Final Agency decisions
On September 10, 2010, the Agency issued its final decisions on
each complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decisions
concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected
him to discrimination as alleged.
In its decision (FAD #1) for complaint #1 (Agency No. 08-00167-01397,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120110403), the Agency found that on March 14, 2007,
a vacancy announcement was opened for General Engineer positions at
various grade levels (vacancy announcement DON0801), including for the
three positions at issue in complaint #1. Complainant applied for the
positions, but was not selected. For the positions at issue in claims
1 and 2, Complainant was one of six competitive candidates listed on
each certificate. For the position in claim 3, Complainant was one of
the 21 competitive candidates listed on the certificate. In order to
be selected, each position required that the selectee have the ability
to receive and maintain a Secret security clearance. The selecting
official (SO-1) for the positions in claims 1 and 2 stated that he
had been informed that Complainant’s security clearance had been
revoked, that he confirmed that information through the Joint Personnel
Adjudication System, and that the Administrative Office informed him that
this rendered Complainant not qualified for the positions. Accordingly,
the selecting official selected different candidates for the positions in
claims 1 and 2. The temporary promotions took effect on March 16, 2008.
Complainant admitted that his security clearance had been revoked and
that he had been suspended from work from February 2007 through April
27, 2008.2
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant for
each position. For the positions in claims 1 and 2, Complainant was
not selected because his security clearance had been revoked at the
time of the selections. For the position in claim 3, the selecting
official (SO-2) established a selection panel to rate and rank the
21 candidates, and SO-2 interviewed the top five ranked candidates.
Complainant was not rated in the top 5 based on the panel’s assessment
of his qualifications, and was therefore not interviewed. The selectee
was chosen on April 15, 2008, based on her superior qualifications.
The Agency concluded that Complainant had not shown the Agency’s
reasons to be pretext for discrimination on any of his alleged bases,
and had not demonstrated that he was so plainly superior to the selectees
as to require a finding of discrimination.
In its decision (FAD #2) for complaint #2 (Agency No. 08-00167-02219, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120110404), the Agency found that on March 14, 2007, a vacancy
announcement was opened for General Engineer positions at various grade
levels (vacancy announcement DON0801) (same as in complaint #1), including
for the 13 positions at issue. Complainant applied for each of the 13
positions. In nine of the positions, Complainant was rated and ranked
with the other candidates on the certificates, but was never the highest
rated candidate. Two positions at issue had the certificate cancelled
and no selection made. For one position, Complainant was not referred
on the certificate as qualified. As to the final position at issue, the
Agency found that Complainant had apparently included his non-selection
as a claim in a previously filed complaint, and that during the course
of the investigation he had not provided any substantive information
about the non-selection, such as the vacancy announcement number.
Regarding the 14-day suspension, on May 5, 2008, Complainant was issued
a Notice of Proposed Suspension for 14 days, based on charges of Misuse
of Government Time and/or Resources and Lack of Candor. The first
charge was based on incidents in which Complainant used his government
computer for personal use between December 2005 and February 2007, and
for not accurately reporting his arrival times on several dates.3 The
second charge related to Complainant misrepresenting his whereabouts at
the Agency facility, and for representing that another employee’s work
product was his own. Upon his return from the indefinite suspension, the
Department Head placed Complainant on a fixed schedule of 7:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Complainant requested to be allowed
to go back to his flexible start-time schedule, but his requests were
denied. Complainant also claimed that he was subjected to a hostile work
environment because his supervisors and the Agency Counsel had not been
removed from their employment with the Agency because of their alleged
discrimination against him.
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant
for each position. In each instance, Complainant was not the superior
candidate for the position in question, or no selection was made
from the certificate. It also found that it had provided legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the issuance of the suspension and for
denying Complainant a flexible schedule, and for not removing from
employment those whom Complainant had named as responsible management
officials in previous complaints. The Agency concluded that Complainant
had not shown the Agency’s reasons to be pretext for discrimination on
any of his alleged bases, had not demonstrated that he was so plainly
superior to the selectees as to require a finding of discrimination,
and had not shown the Agency’s actions to be otherwise discriminatory.
In its combined decision (FAD #3) for complaint #3 (Agency
No. 08-00167-02685) and complaint #4 (Agency No. 08-00167-03202),
(EEOC Appeal No. 0120110398), the Agency found that Complainant was
assigned to the Signatures Department, Electromagnetic Signatures
Division, Signatures Engineering Branch, but that on June 23, 2008,
he was informed that he would be reassigned to the Acoustic Signatures
Technology Division, Structural, Acoustics, and Target Strength Branch.
Complainant sent letters to the Secretary of the Navy, the Activity
Commander, the Commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Chief
of Naval Operations attempting to have his suspension rescinded (from
complaint #2), his flexible work schedule reinstated, and his reassignment
rescinded. Complainant met with his second-level supervisor on July
8, 2008 and was informed of the following: his work schedule would be
7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; he would get one hour of
official time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m.,
in order to work on his EEO complaints; he was assigned a government
computer and told the locations of the printer, copier and fax; his
office space was moved; he was told the leave policy; and he was given
his job order numbers.
Complainant requested that his transfer be rescinded, that his flexible
work schedule be reinstated, and that he receive an additional seven
hours of official time each week to work on his EEO complaints. He also
asked that he be moved to an office with a thermostat, claiming that
he had been put into a “closet,” and that he be allowed to telework
three days a week. When his assigned office equipment was out of order,
he claimed that he was not allowed to use alternative equipment.
Complaints #3 and #4 contain five claims of discriminatory non-selection.
One position was advertised via memo to all Code 72 personnel to solicit
interest. The selecting official collected statements of qualification
and interest in the position of Interdisciplinary Manager, from which
he then made a selection. For the other four positions, certificates
containing competitive candidates were generated, and Complainant was
listed on three of the four certificates. In those instances, another
candidate was found to be more qualified and was selected. For the fourth
certificate where Complainant was not listed as a competitive candidate,
no selection was made for the position.
Finally, Complainant claimed that in September 2008, he attempted to
retrieve three computer memory sticks he had loaned to another employee,
and to locate several items which had been in his office prior to his
long-term suspension, but which could no longer be found. He claimed
that the Agency refused to aid him in recovering any of the items.
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each of Complainant’s
claims. The Department Head testified that Complainant was reassigned
to a new position upon his return from the long-term suspension for a
variety of reasons. Complainant was reassigned to the Target Strength
Branch because Complainant’s Ph.D. thesis was in Target Strength,
and he had previously worked there. The Target Strength Branch was
short-handed due to a recent retirement and needed help, and it was
thought that Complainant could get a “fresh start” there as he had
no adverse history with the Target Strength Branch Head. Additionally,
the Department Head noted that Complainant took a lot of time to manage,
that the Signatures Engineering Branch had been demoralized due to the
amount of time the supervisor there had to spend on Complainant, and
that while Complainant had been out of the workplace, the Branch had
made a lot of progress toward becoming stabilized, which the Department
Head did not wish to jeopardize.
Complainant was put on a fixed schedule and his telework request was
denied due to the need to monitor his location and activities, as a
result of Complainant’s prior misuse of government equipment, and his
prior falsification of sign-in/sign-out sheets. His request to telework
three days a week was also denied because no one in the Department was
on a regularly-scheduled telework schedule, and no one teleworked three
days a week on a regular basis; telework was generally approved on an
ad hoc basis. Complainant’s requests for additional time each week
to work on his EEO complaints were denied because Complainant did not
provide any supporting information which demonstrated that he required
additional official time for specific tasks, and the Legal Office had
advised that no cases had hearings scheduled at that time which would
necessitate additional preparatory time.
In response to Complainant’s claim that he could not use alternative
office equipment was his assigned equipment was out of order, his
supervisor testified that he had checked the equipment on the days
in question and found it to be in working order, and that supplies of
ink cartridges and paper were available. He also noted that two other
printers were available for use, and that no other employees who also used
the same equipment complained about either supplies or functionality.
Complainant’s second-level supervisor noted that Complainant did not
complain that the office equipment did not work with respect to his
required Agency work, just for his EEO complaint work.
Regarding Complainant’s claims about his assigned office space,
Complainant’s supervisors testified that the office was not a
“closet” but rather was an appropriately-sized office space that
the previous occupant had never complained about. Many other employees,
including senior personnel, had used the space in the past, and it had
been in generally continuous use for many years. The new office was
situated to allow management to observe Complainant. Upon receiving
Complainant’s complaints about the air flow and temperature, the Safety
and Facilities Office inspected the space and identified actions that
would be taken to improve air flow.
The Agency proffered that the computer memory sticks were taken from
Complainant because the memory sticks were government property, and
Complainant had failed to return them when asked during the period of
the suspension of his security clearance. Complainant’s first-level
supervisor testified that since August 2008, the use of personal computer
memory sticks has been prohibited at the Agency facility, and the use of
memory sticks by all employees had since been prohibited. The use of
USB devices in general had been limited Agency-wide. Complainant’s
first-level supervisor also stated that Complainant’s rationale for
needing the memory sticks caused concern as there was no valid work
reason for him to use them.
Complainant’s first-level supervisor also testified that he attempted
to help Complainant retrieve his missing materials and files, all of
which was government property related to a particular project to which
Complainant had been assigned. Complainant’s second-level supervisor
confirmed that Complainant was directed to a storage area that had
boxes of his office contents, and that Complainant’s efforts should
be directed to recovering or recreating only the materials necessary
for his currently assigned work projects.
As to the non-selections claims in complaints #3 and #4, the Agency found
that Complainant was not selected because at the time of one selection,
he had a suspended security clearance and was unavailable therefore for
the position, no one was selected for another position, and Complainant
was not determined to be the best candidate for the other positions.
The Agency’s decision in FAD #3 concluded that Complainant had not
shown the Agency’s reasons to be pretext for discrimination on any
of his alleged bases, had not demonstrated that he was so plainly
superior to the selectees as to require a finding of discrimination,
had not demonstrated that the Agency actions were based on anything
other than his long-standing misconduct issues, and had not shown any
of the Agency’s actions to be otherwise discriminatory.
In its decision (FAD #4) for complaint #5 (Agency No. 09-00167-00900,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120110400), the Agency found that for the performance
appraisal period in FY2008 (October 1, 2007 through September 30,
2008), Complainant was rated as “Acceptable.” His supervisor noted
that he had demonstrated “minimally acceptable performance” on his
assigned tasks. When assessing his performance using the factors that
determine incentive pay points, Complainant received two points, with
a notation of “marginal performance.” Complainant asked his first
and second-level supervisors to reconsider his performance assessment,
who asked him to submit any additional information or work products that
he wished to have considered as part of his FY2008 accomplishments.
In the course of the discussion via e-mail regarding his FY2008
performance evaluation, Complainant sent an e-mail to his second-level
supervisor which referenced certain programs on which he had worked,
and which Complainant had also sent to his first-level supervisor and to
a non-Agency e-mail account that appeared to belong to Complainant’s
brother. The second-level supervisor was concerned about the sensitivity
of the program information forwarded, and asked the Technical Warrant
Holder to evaluate the information. The evaluation concluded that the
program information was not classified, but was very sensitive and was
“for official use only.” Based on this, Complainant’s first-level
supervisor ordered Complainant not to send any e-mails that contained
work or work-related information to any non-government e-mail account.
Complainant disputed this analysis of the e-mail contents and maintained
that no classified information was being transmitted and that he needed
to send it to his home e-mail account in order to respond to requests
related to his performance evaluation.
Regarding the non-selection, on March 14, 2007, a vacancy announcement
was opened for General Engineer positions at various grade levels (vacancy
announcement DON0801), (same as in complaint #1), including for the ND-05
Engineer position under certificate number NE8-ND-0801-05-4G130717-C in
Code 2130. On October 14, 2008, an internal certificate was issued with
two candidates; Complainant was not on the certificate. A selection panel
rated the candidates, interviewed each, and forwarded their recommendation
to a selecting official, who chose the selectee.
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each of Complainant’s claims.
The Agency found that Complainant’s first-level supervisor had solicited
input from Complainant’s prior supervisors in the Signatures Engineering
Branch, and considered Complainant’s self-appraisal and his work
products when determining the FY2008 performance rating. Reviewing the
totality of Complainant’s work products and considering the input he
received, the first-level supervisor determined that Complainant’s
performance was “Acceptable,” which he stated was not meant to be
a negative rating. He testified that in his judgment and that of the
second-level supervisor, Complainant did not warrant the four pay points
he was arguing he should have been awarded.
Complainant’s first and second-level supervisors were aware
of the e-mail address of Complainant’s brother, who had been
removed from employment at the same facility of the Agency4, and
were concerned about Complainant forwarding work-related information
to a non-government e-mail address. After a review of the forwarded
material by the Technical Warrant Holder, Complainant was ordered not
to send work-related information to non-government e-mail addresses.
Complainant’s first-level supervisor maintained that he had a
responsibility to safeguard classified and unclassified material.
His second-level supervisor testified that Complainant’s assertion
that he was using his personal e-mail to back-up information was not
provided until Complainant filed the instant EEO complaint, and that
if Complainant was using private e-mail to back-up information such a
practice would be against Information Technology security regulations.
As to the non-selection at issue in complaint #5, the Agency found
that Complainant had not been forwarded on the selection certificate as
qualified for the position, and so was not considered by the three-member
selection panel, or by the selecting official. The position at issue
required a Top Secret security clearance, which Complainant did not
possess.
The Agency concluded that Complainant had not shown the Agency’s
reasons to be pretext for discrimination on any of his alleged bases,
and had not demonstrated that he was so plainly superior to the selectee
as to require a finding of discrimination.
In its decision (FAD #5) for complaint #6 (Agency No. 09-00167-00755,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120110402), the Agency found that on March 14, 2007, a
vacancy announcement was opened for General Engineer positions at various
grade levels (vacancy announcement DON0801), (same as in complaint #1),
including for the two positions at issue in complaint #6. Complainant
applied for the positions, but was not selected. For the position in
claim 1, Complainant was on the certificate as one of six competitive
candidates. A selection panel rated and ranked the candidates and
conducted interviews; Complainant was ranked fourth and was not selected.
For the position in claim 2, Complainant was one of three candidates who
submitted resumes to the Department Head for consideration. An interview
panel was established with three voting members, the selecting official
and a non-voting member who was the EEO representative. Complainant
scored very low and was dropped from the second round of interviews.
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each of Complainant’s claims.
For claim 1, the selecting official testified that the most qualified
candidate was chosen. He testified that the position was for a highly
technical Program Manager position in his Branch and that it required
very specific experience in that field. The selecting official stated
that Complainant had not worked in that Branch in the entire eight years
the selecting official had been there, and so could not possibly have the
expertise he claimed to possess. The selecting official and the interview
panel members each testified that Complainant began his interview by
angrily denouncing the interview process as a farce to promote a favored
person, and that he accused the panel of being biased against him.
For claim 2, the Agency noted that panel interviews had been conducted
and that Complainant ranked far below the other candidates and so was not
interviewed in the second round. The selecting official testified that
Complainant was not able to answer the interview questions appropriately,
that he was not focused, and that his answers lacked quality. Complainant
asserted he was qualified, but would not answer the questions with
specifics, while the other candidates were able to do so.
The Agency asserted that Complainant was not the most qualified for
either position at issue in complaint #6. The positions also required
a Top Secret security clearance, which Complainant did not possess.
The Agency concluded that Complainant had not shown the Agency’s
reasons to be pretext for discrimination on any of his alleged bases,
and had not demonstrated that he was so plainly superior to the selectees
as to require a finding of discrimination.
In its decision (FAD #6) for complaint #7 (Agency No. 09-00167-01370,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120110401), the Agency found that on January 4,
2009, Complainant was sent a reminder by the Training Department to
complete the Annual Security Refresher training by February 6, 2009.
Complainant asserted that the training was not due until May 2009.
Complainant also claimed that his first-level supervisor scheduled
meetings at 3:00 p.m. so that the meeting would not be over by 4:00
p.m. and so that he could then harass Complainant about not leaving by
4:00 p.m., as he had been instructed to do.
On February 10, 2009, the Division Commander issued Complainant a Notice
of Intent to Suspend Access to Classified Information and Eligibility
for Assignment to a Sensitive Position (Notice of Intent), based on
Complainant’s failure to follow security and information technology
directives relating to his use of USB devices on his Agency computer,
in violation of Agency policy. Complainant was also found to have
accessed web pages unrelated to his work. Complainant asked for an
extension of time to respond to the Notice of Intent, as well as for the
supporting documentation. The Division Commander denied his extension
request and informed Complainant that all supporting documentation had
already been attached to the Notice of Intent. The Notice of Intent also
placed Complainant on administrative leave while the Notice of Intent was
pending, and he was ordered to return all government property assigned to
him, including his travel and purchase cards, badges, laptop and other
computers, mobile phone and memory sticks. Complainant was escorted
from the facility to his car by a police officer.
On February 13, 2009, Complainant requested LWOP for the time period
during which his security clearance was suspended, which was denied.
On February 18, 2009, the Division Commander issued Complainant the
Notice to Indefinitely Suspend Access to Classified Information and
Eligibility for Assignment to a Sensitive Position (Notice to Suspend).
Complainant was to be suspended until the Department of the Navy Central
Adjudication Facility (DONCAF) made a final determination on his security
clearance. Complainant sent several requests to the Division Commander
to reconsider the decision, but did not receive any reply.
The Agency found that on March 14, 2007, a vacancy announcement
was opened for General Engineer positions at various grade levels
(vacancy announcement DON0801), (same as in complaint #1), including
for the position at issue in complaint #7. Complainant applied and was
considered for the position of Engineer, ND-05, on a certificate that
included eight competitive candidates and one non-competitive candidate.
The selecting official reviewed the resumes, decided not to conduct
interviews, and chose another candidate for the position.
The Agency decision assumed that Complainant had established his prima
facie cases on all alleged bases. It found that it had articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for each of Complainant’s claims.
As to Complainant’s claim about the Annual Security Refresher training,
the Agency found that the training was mandatory for all personnel,
that an organization outside of Complainant’s facility initiated
it and set the February 6, 2009, deadline, and records were kept as
to who had completed the training. The training was web-based and
could be completed by the employee on work time, at a time of their
own choosing. Complainant’s supervisors testified that he was not
treated any differently than any other employee with respect to the
training requirement and reminders.
As to Complainant’s claim that he had been chastised for staying past
4:00 p.m., Complainant’s first-level supervisor testified that he had
told Complainant that even if another employee asked him to stay past
4:00 p.m., as he claimed, Complainant was to leave at 4:00 p.m., as he
had been instructed to do. Complainant had stayed late more than 14
times, in violation of the directive specifying his work hours, which
was in place due to his prior time-card fraud issues.
The Agency put forth testimony that Complainant received the Notice of
Intent to Suspend Access to Classified Information and Eligibility for
Assignment to a Sensitive Position due to his alleged use of computer
memory sticks to store classified information, his use of memory sticks
outside of the lab, and his use of memory sticks in violation of the
Agency-wide prohibition on their use. The beginning of the process
to suspend his security clearance started with the Notice of Intent,
and Complainant’s opportunity to respond to the Notice of Intent.
All employees were informed of their security responsibilities in
annual trainings, and were on notice as to what could suspend access to
classified information. Complainant’s supervisors maintained that he
had been given all relevant supporting documentation when he received
the Notice of Intent.
The Division Commander testified that he issued the Notice of Intent,
and the Notice to Suspend, after a network monitoring system documented
that a flash drive had been inserted in Complainant’s computer,
and that classified materials were found on the device. He also
maintained that Complainant had visited “troubling” websites and
stored that information on his computer. That information included
instructions on how to make a flame thrower, how to pick a lock, and what
to do when the Federal Bureau of Investigation showed up at the door.
The Division Commander stated that he denied Complainant’s request for
supporting documentation because Complainant requested the flash drive in
question, which Complainant was not permitted to have off Agency premises.
He maintained that Complainant had more than adequate time to respond to
the Notice of Intent. The Division Commander found that Complainant had
not submitted anything in his response which caused him to change his
mind, so he issued the Notice to Suspend, and Complainant’s requests
to reconsider were beyond his control to grant as the decision had moved
on to DONCAF5 to make.
In accordance with Agency policy, once Complainant received the Notice of
Intent, he was escorted off the Agency work site, and was not permitted
to take work materials with him. Complainant’s supervisors went through
the 11 boxes of materials Complainant attempted to remove from his office,
and separated out the government property from Complainant’s personal
property, finding a significant amount of government work product,
classified information, and government property. Complainant’s
request for LWOP was denied as Agency policy was to put employees on
administrative leave when deciding on a suspension.
Finally, as to Complainant’s non-selection claim, the Agency put
forth testimony from the selecting official that Complainant could
not be considered based on the suspension of his security clearance,
and because he was not the best qualified for the position.
The Agency concluded that Complainant had not shown any of these Agency
reasons to be pretext for discrimination on the bases of his national
origin, age or in reprisal for his EEO activity, had not demonstrated
that he was so plainly superior to the selectee as to require a finding of
discrimination, and had not shown the Agency’s actions to be otherwise
discriminatory.
The Agency decisions concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency subjected him to discrimination based on his national origin,
age or in reprisal for his extensive past EEO activity. Complainant
thereafter filed the instant appeals.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
In his arguments in support of his appeals, Complainant argued at length
that the AJ had abused his discretion in dismissing Complainant’s
hearing request, and accused the AJ and the Agency Counsel of improper
behavior, using much of the same inflammatory language and arguments
that the AJ found to be improper and without merit. Complainant also
argued that the Commission should reverse the Agency’s findings of no
discrimination and issue decisions in his favor.
The Agency filed statements in opposition to Complainant’s appeals, in
which it argued that the AJ had made an appropriate decision to dismiss
the hearing requests, given the history of Complainant’s behavior and
failure to comply with AJ Orders. It also urged the Commission to affirm
its findings on the merits of Complainant’s complaints.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de
novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO
MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.A. (Nov. 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record
without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous
decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”).
The Agency’s procedural dismissals
In each complaint (with the exception of complaint #2), the Agency
dismissed one or more of Complainant’s claims under various parts of
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a). We have reviewed the Agency’s procedural
dismissals in each instance and find that the Agency correctly determined
that the claims in question should be dismissed.
We note that we have previously affirmed the Agency’s dismissals
of Complainant’s complaints of discriminatory non-selections for
abuse of process in Y. Stoyanov v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal
Nos. 0120110604, 0120111454, 0120111991 (April 20, 2011) and Y. Stoyanov
v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120113142, 0120113817,
0120114019 (December 6, 2011).
AJ’s dismissal of hearing requests
The AJ dismissed Complainant’s hearing requests on the basis of his
failure to comply with Orders, to refrain from personally attacking the
integrity of Agency Counsel, and because Complainant had demonstrated
“willful, disobedient, contumacious conduct” in his refusal
to appear for the in-person status conference. The AJ’s Order of
Dismissal detailed Complainant’s behavior in the hearing process for
these complaints, and references Complainant’s previous history in the
hearing process for other complaints. Complainant has been repeatedly
warned and ordered not to engage in disrespectful conduct towards the
Agency Counsel and towards the Administrative Judges. He has been ordered
not to file frivolous and repetitive motions. He has been sanctioned,
in a previous case, through an order to pay attorney’s fees and costs
for the Agency, and had motions struck from the record. Despite these
past Orders, warnings, and sanctions, Complainant persisted in some of
the same conduct in the instant cases.
The Commission's regulations afford broad authority to AJs for the
conduct of hearings. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109 et seq.; EEO MD-110, Chap. 7,
§ III.D. An AJ has inherent powers to conduct a hearing and issue
appropriate sanctions, up to and including a default judgment. Id.;
see Matheny v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05A30373 (April 21,
2005); Rountree v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00015 (July
17, 2001). We find that the AJ was well within the bounds of discretion
when he dismissed Complainant’s hearing request with prejudice, as
clearly, no other sanction would seem to have any effect on modifying
Complainant’s behavior.6
Agency’s findings
We turn to whether the Agency findings of no discrimination are supported
by the evidence in the records. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim
such as this, complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme
fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case
by demonstrating that he was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination.
Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a
prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804, n. 14. The burden then shifts to
the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s explanation is
pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
We assume that Complainant has established his prima facie cases of
discrimination on the bases of his national origin, age and reprisal.
This shifts the burden to the Agency to articulate legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. A review of the records
for the seven complaints at issue in these six appeals finds evidentiary
support for each of the reasons for the Agency’s actions, as articulated
in the final Agency decisions. We do not find that Complainant has
shown that the Agency’s reasons were pretext for discrimination, and
there is no evidence in the record to support Complainant’s contentions.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final decisions finding Complainant did not establish that
he was subjected to unlawful discrimination, as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
January 27, 2012
Date
1 The AJ had processed Complainant’s requests in Agency
No. 06-00167-01637/Hearing Request No. 531-2007-00135X (appealed in EEOC
Appeal No. 0120073694 (Dec. 22, 2011)), and Agency Nos. 03-00167-005,
007, 010/Hearing Request No. 120-2003-00387X (appealed in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A50861 (March 2, 2006)), as well as several of the Hearing
Requests for Complainant’s brother’s EEO complaints (filed against
the same Agency facility as Complainant’s complaints), which had been
consolidated for joint processing with those of Complainant.
2 Complainant’s claims regarding the revocation of his security
clearance and his indefinite suspension are at issue in Agency
Nos. 07-00167-01520 and 07-00167-01928, which are the subject of EEOC
Appeal Nos. 0120110405 and 0120110406 (pending).
3 The issuance of the Notice of Proposed Suspension had been held in
abeyance while Complainant was serving the indefinite suspension related
to the revocation of his security clearance between February 2007 and
April 2008.
4 See A. Stoyanov v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 03A50077
(Sept. 23, 2005), in which we affirmed the ruling of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) that Complainant’s brother’s removal from
the Agency was proper.
5 Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility.
6 We note that Complainant has filed numerous subsequent EEO complaints
in which he requested hearings before a Commission AJ. The appeals of
the dismissal of those hearings requests and the Agency’s decisions on
the merits of his complaints are at issue in EEOC Appeal Nos. 01201103931
through 0120113936 (pending).
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120110398
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120110398, 0120110400
0120110401, 0120110402
0120110403, 0120110404