U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Hulda W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Appeal No. 0120161077 Agency No. 1G-701-0011-16 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated January 5, 2016, dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was retired from her position as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency's New Orleans Processing and Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. On December 23, 2015, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment on the basis of disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. on November 18, 2015, she received a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness for Employee--Life Insurance; and 2. on November 20, 2015, she received a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness for Employee--Health Benefits. Complainant asserted that she paid the bills at issue before the issuance of the Letters of Demand. She alleged that the letters, which were signed by the Manager of Distribution Operations, were a form of harassment and that the Agency issued the letters in reprisal for a September 2014 settlement of a prior EEO complaint. The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds that it failed to state a claim and that it raised the same matter that was raised in a previous complaint.2 The Agency found that Complainant's allegations regarding the Letters of Demand for a debt that she allegedly owed to the Agency fell under the purview of the Debt Collection Act, which is outside the Commission's jurisdiction. The Agency advised Complainant that claims regarding debt collection should be raised with the Agency's Judicial Officer. CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, Complainant argues that the Letters of Demand constitute harassment in reprisal for the September 2014 EEO settlement agreement. She states that the agreement provided her with a monetary award and with the restoration of sick and annual leave. Complainant asserts that she lost health and life insurance benefits because the Agency did not restore the leave in a timely manner. In addition, Complainant states that she paid all invoices in a timely manner and that she does not owe the Agency any money. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The regulation set forth at 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, disability, or genetic information. 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). 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 Act. The Commission previously has held that 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. Amato v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Request No. 0520070240 (July 18, 2007); Baughman v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01900865 (Feb. 26, 1990). The proper forum for Complainant to challenge the appropriateness of the Letters of Demand is under the Debt Collection Act process; the Commission's regulations do not provide it with jurisdiction to decide matters covered by the Debt Collection Act. We find, therefore, that Complainant's complaint fails to state a claim under EEOC regulations because Complainant has not shown that she suffered a harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. Accordingly, we find that the Agency properly dismissed Complainant's complaint on the ground that it is not within the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction and therefore fails to state a claim. Having found that Complainant's complaint fails to state a claim, we need not determine whether the Agency properly found that the complaint raised the same matter that was raised in a previous complaint. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) 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 Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (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 May 19, 2016 __________________ Date 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. 2 In complaint number 1G-701-0043-15, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race, color, disability, age, genetic information, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she received a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness for Employee---Health Benefits on June 16, 2015, and a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act on July 11, 2015. The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim because it fell under the purview of the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3711 et seq., which is outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal of the complaint. EEOC Appeal No. 0120152930 (Jan. 21, 2016). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 2 0120161077 2 0120161077