Fiorillo v. Slater Joint Appendix
Public Court Documents
January 15, 1998
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Fiorillo v. Slater Joint Appendix, 1998. 498140ae-b19a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/79af5b41-cdb0-487d-9dee-4bf44409baad/fiorillo-v-slater-joint-appendix. Accessed June 15, 2025.
Copied!
97-6337
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
v.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
RODNEY SLATER, Secretaiy,
United States Department of Transportation,
Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York
JOINT APPENDIX
E laine R. Jones
D ir ector-Cou ns el
T h e o d o r e M. Shaw
N o r m a n J. Chachkin
Cha rl es Step hen Ralston
NAACP Leg al D efe nse a n d
E du c a ti o n a l f u n d , In c .
99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
Ge o f f r e y M ort
G o o d m a n & Z uchlewski
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10110
(212) 869-1940
V ale r ie A. V o or hee s
A tt o r n e y at Law
305 Broadway, Suite 500
New York, NY 10007
(212) 502-3410
M a r y Jo W hite
U nited States A tt o r n e y for the
So u t h e r n D istrict of N ew Y ork
Jennifer K. Brow n
Assistant U nited States a t t o r n e y
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 385-6360
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Docket Number
28
32
24
30
34
43
46
47
48
49
Description of Document page
Docket E n tr ie s ..................................................... A-l
Second Amended C om plaint............................... A-8
Answer to Second Amended Com plaint.......... A-67
Defendant’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss . . . . A-76
Opinion and Order Denying in Part and Granting
in Part Defendant’s Motion to D ism iss............. A-78
Transcript of Decision Denying in Part and Granting
in Part Defendant’s Motion to D ism iss.............A-80
Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs
Motion for Reconsideration .............................. A-96
Stipulation of Partial Voluntary Dismissal . . . A-98
Order of Dismissal ................................................A-100
Judgm ent..................................................................A-101
Notice of Appeal ...................................................A-102
i
U . S . D i s t r i c t C ourt
S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York - C i v i l D a t a b a s e
APPEAL CLOSEDMAG
( F o l e y S q u a r e )
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9 6 -C V -3 9 6 7
F i o r i l l o v . P en a , e t a l
A s s i g n e d t o : Ju d g e J o h n G. K o e l t l
R e f e r r e d t o : M a g i s t r a t e
Demand: $ 0 , 0 0 0
Lead D o c k e t : None
Dkt# i n o t h e r c o u r t : None
F i l e d : 0 5 / 2 4 / 9 6
J u r y demand: P l a i n t i f f
J u d g e H enry B. P i tm an
N a t u r e o f S u i t : 442
J u r i s d i c t i o n : US D e f e n d a n t
C ause: 4 2 : 2 0 0 0 J o b D i s c r i m i n a t i o n (Employment)
ANNE M. FIORILLO
p l a i n t i f f
v .
FEDERICO F. PENA, S e c r e t a r y ,
U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
d e f e n d a n t
P e a r l Z u c h l e w s k i
S u i t e 5225
[COR LD NTC]
Goodman & Z u c h l e w s k i
500 F i f t h Avenue
New York, NY 1 0 1 1 0 - 5 1 9 7
( 2 1 2 ) 8 6 9 - 1 9 4 0
L in d a J . Sammartano
[COR LD NTC]
V o o r h e e s & A s s o c i a t e s
2 1 6 6 Broadway
New York , NY 1 0 024
212 8 7 7 - 3 4 3 5
J e n n i f e r Kay Brown
[COR LD NTC]
U . S . A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e
S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York
100 Church S t r e e t
New York, NY 1 0 0 0 7
(212) 3 8 5 - 6 3 6 0
U .S . DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
d e f e n d a n t
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 1
A - 1
Proceedings include all events.
1:96cv3967 Fiorillo v. Pena, et al
5 / 2 4 / 9 6 1
5 / 2 4 / 9 6 - -
7 / 9 / 9 6 2
7 / 1 2 / 9 6 3
8 / 1 9 / 9 6 4
9 / 6 / 9 6 5
9 / 1 3 / 9 6 6
1 1 / 1 9 / 9 6 7
APPEALCLOSED MAG
COMPLAINT f i l e d ; Summons i s s u e d and N o t i c e n n r q n a n t no
U ^S.C. 6 3 6 ( c ) ; FILING FEE $ 120 S S ; R E cI i p ¥ # 2 ^ 2 8 9 ? ^ ,[ E n t r y d a t e 0 5 / 2 8 / 9 6 ] # 2 6 2 8 9 5 . (kw)
I t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e c a s e b e c l a s s i f i e d a s s t a n d a r d
M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e G r u b in i s s o D e s i g n a t e d (kwf S t a n d a r d '
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 5 / 2 8 / 9 6 ] y
° n l e C t e r irom C h a r l e s S t e p h e n
T / j n / S e ? 7 / 3 / 9 C ' r e q u e s t i n g an a d j o u r n m e n t o f t h e
ORDERED 7 / ? / « 8n™pr'T, H? CONFERENCE WILL BE ADJOURNED. SO
I M f ' ? h J - ( s i g n e d b y J u d g e J o h n G.K o e l t l ) ( lam) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 7 / 1 0 / 9 6 ]
AMENDED COMPLAINT b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o , (Answer due 7 / 2 5 / 9 6
u s Fn 2 S f / S ° F ' Pena a m e n d in g [ l - l ] c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t 79
( d ? c ) D! I ^ ^ ? r S ? ; i ^ TRIAL DEMANDED; Summons9 i s s u e d .
F i l e d M emo-Endorsement on l e t t e r t o J u d g e K o e l t l from
J e n n i f e r K. Brown d a t e d 8 / 1 5 / 9 6 , I n Re: w r i t i n g t o R e q u e s t
t ^ % ™ ° T S /2 0 /9 6 t o t h e G o v e r n m S S [ oa n s w e r t o t h e c o m p l a i n t ................ A p p l i c a t i o n G r a n t e d r e s e t
“ j o S D e p c / T r a n s p ° r t a « s ^ n e d by
? " P o ^ , o L PS r S t S r n Fe y PS y a a t ^ “ J y n ^ n5 ? e n i f e r
Kay Brown f o r d e f e n d a n t F e d e r i c o F Pena (cd)
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 1 0 / 9 6 ]
o S f o f ^ A f / f f SCHEDULING ORDER s e t t i n g D i s c o v e r y
2 / 2 1 / 9 7 - d i ^ n n c > - e a d l l n e f ° r o f p r o c e d u r a l m o t i o n sJ T d l f p ° s i t i v e m o t i o n s 4 / 1 4 / 9 7 ; a n y m o t i o n s i n l i m i n e
o r m o t i o n s t o b i f u r c a t e t r i a l b y 5 / 1 6 / 9 7 ; - j o i n t P r e t r i a l
a r d a f - t 0 be subm;i-t t e d ° n o r b e f o r e 5 / 1 6 / 9 7 • T r i a l r e a d v
d e a d l i n e 5 / 2 8 / 9 7 ; No a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s a f t e r 9 / 9 / 9 6 n £
a d d i t i o n a l c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a f t e r 1 0 / 1 / 9 6 ; P a r t i e s w i l l
r e p o r t o t t h i s C ourt by J o i n t l e t t e r b y 1 0 / 4 / 9 6 U ) W h ether
t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h e Mag. J u d g e f o r p r u p o s e s o f e t h e r
Tria l"e h e ? t W° ^ i d 5® u s e f u l ; and (2) w h e t h e r t h e y a g r e e t o r i a l b e f o r e t h e M.J . . . . s e e d o c . f o r f u r t h e r s c h e d u l i n a‘s i 9 n e d by Jud9e «■
C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Order upon t h e m o t i o n o f t h e d e f t f o r t h e
p u r p o s e o f a s s u r i n g t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f c e r t a i n ' i n f o h
d ? s L ! “a y bS d i s c l ° s e d bV t h e d e f t , i n t h e c o u r s e o f
d i s c o v e r y p r o c e e d i n g s . . . . s e e d o c . . . . S O ORDERED (
s i g n e d b y J u d g e John G. K o e l t l ) . ( I s ) [Ent^y d a t e ’ l l / i o / 9 6 ]
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 2
A - 2
1 1 / 1 9 / 9 6 8
Proceedings1:96cv3967 include all events.
Fiorillo v. Pena, et al APPEALCLOSED MAG
1 / 2 1 / 9 7 9
2 / 4 / 9 7 10
2 / 2 7 / 9 7 11
4 / 8 / 9 7 12
4 / 8 / 9 7 13
4 / 8 / 9 7 14
4 / 8 / 9 7 15
4 / 8 / 9 7 16
4 / 8 / 9 7 17
4 / 8 / 9 7 18
4 / 8 / 9 7 19
ORDER, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t s t o an y
i n f o r m a t i m o n o r m a t e r i a l s o u g h t b y p l a i n t i f f d u r i n q t h e
c o u r s e o f t h i s a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t s u c h p r o d u c t i o n i s
???= SY 5 ^ P£ l v a c Y A c t o f 1 9 7 4 , 5 U . S . C . s e c t i o n
5 5 2 a , d e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t i o n i s o v e r r u l e d and d e f e n d a n t
s h a l l p r o d u c e t h e r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s and o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n
" ^ e r i a i . 5 U . S . C . s e c t i o n 5 5 2 a ( b ) ( l l ) . T h i s O r d e r s
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o a n y o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s d e f e n d a n t may
d i s ^ o v e r y r e q u e s t s . ( s i g n e d b y J^ d ge
Joh n G. K o e l t l ) ; C o p i e s m a i l e d ( d j c ) [ E n t r y d a t e 1 1 / 2 0 / 9 6 ]
NOTICE o f a t t o r n e y a p p e a r a n c e f o r Anne M. F i o r i l l o b y P e a r l
Z u c h l e w s k i , c o - c o u n s e l f o r p l t f f . (kg) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 1 / 2 2 / 9 7 ]
O r d e r t h a t c a s e be r e f e r r e d t o t h e C l e r k o f C ourt f o r
a s s i g n m e n t t o a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e f o r D i s c o v e r y D i s p u t e (
s i g n e d b y Ju d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) R e f e r r e d t o M a g i s t r a t e
J u d g e S h a r o n G r u b in (kg) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 2 / 0 6 / 9 7 ]
STIPULATION and ORDER, e x t e n d i n g t i m e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y
d e a d l i n e i s e x t e n d e d from 3 / 1 4 / 9 7 t o 4 / 2 5 / 9 7 r e s e t
f 1SC? k f 2 r 4 / n5/!9 7 / ( s i g n e d b y J u d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) • (kg) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 2 / 2 8 / 9 7 ]
NOUCE OF MOTION b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an
amended c o m p l a i n t R e t u r n d a t e 4 / 9 / 9 7 . (kw)
MEMORANDUM by Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n s u p p o r t o f [1 2 - 1 ] m o t i o n
f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t (kw)
MEMORANDUM by F e d e r i c o F. P en a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t s i n
S p ! i i n ? n (kS) l l 2 ’ 1) m° t l o n £ o r l e a v e t o £ i l e a "
REPLY MEMORANDUM by Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n s u p p o r t o f r e :
1] m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an amended c o m p l a i n t (kw)
NOTICE OF MOTION by Anne M. F i o r i l l o f o r r e a r g u m e n t on t h e
g r o u n d t h a t t h e C ourt e r r e d i n i t s r u l i n g s o n g 3 / l 3 / 9 7 w i t h
t h ? >oT:t 5 ° c o n s i d e r i n 9 D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n f o r Judgment on
t h e P l e a d i n g s and s t a y i n g d i s c o v e r y w h i l e s a i d m o t i o n i s
p e n d i n g , and f o r s u c h o t h e r and f u r t h e r r e l i e f a s t h e C ourt
deems j u s t and p r o p e r . R e t u r n d a t e 4 / 8 / 9 7 (kw)
° £ G e0 ff” y by
MEMORANDUM b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n s u p p o r t o f [ 1 6 - 1 ] m o t i o n .
DECLARATION i n o p p o s i t i o n o f J e n n i f e r Brown b y F e d e r i c o F
P en a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a t o [1 6 - 1 ] m o t i o n , (kw)
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 3
A - 3
Proceedings include all events.
1:96cv3967 Fiorillo v. Pena, et al
4 / 8 / 9 7
4 / 8 / 9 7
2 0
21
4 / 1 0 / 9 7 22
4 / 1 8 / 9 7 23
4 / 1 8 / 9 7 24
4 / 1 8 / 9 7 25
4 / 1 8 / 9 7 26
4 / 1 8 / 9 7 27
4 / 2 4 / 9 7 28
APPEALCLOSED MAG
MEMORANDUM b y F e d e r i c o F. P en a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s n o r t a ^
o p p o s i t i o n t o [ 1 6 - 1 ] m o t i o n , (kw) P 7 n s P ° r t a m
REPLY MEMORANDUM b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n s u p p o r t o f r e •
L16-1J m o t i o n , (kw)
? S ? \ h c d ? n y i ? 9 I I 6 ; 1 ? m° t i o n £ o r r e a r gument on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e C ourt e r r e d m i t s r u l i n g s on 3 / 1 3 / 9 7 w i t h
t h p Pp ? L H ° c o n s i ^e r i n 9 . D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n f o r Judgm ent on
t h e P l e a d i n g s and s t a y i n g d i s c o v e r y w h i l e s a i d m o t i o n i s
5 ° r SUCh o t h e r and f u r t h e r r e l i e f a s t h e Court
and p r o p e r . , g r a n t i n g [ 1 2 - 1 ] m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o
«- ? u d c ?mP l a i n t - .The d e f e n d a n t s - m o t i o n f o r
ju d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d t o b e d i r e c t e d
t w , amended c o m p l a i n t . S e t D e f e n d a n t s ' r e p l y b r i e f due
f o r 4 / 1 6 / 9 7 , and s u b m i t t h e f u l l y b r i e f e d m o t i o n p r o m p t l y
• - So O r d e r e d ( s i g n e d b y J u d g e Joh n G.
K o e l t l ) , C o p i e s m a i l e d ( p i ) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 1 1 / 9 7 ]
MEMORANDUM b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n o p p o s i t i o n t o d e f t ' s
m o t i o n f o r j d g m t . on t h e p l e a d i n q s ( I s )
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 2 1 / 9 7 ]
NOTICE OF MOTION b y F e d e r i c o F. P e n a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a
l 2 Tc f n o ? r ? h r P°Hd l f m io S t h e comPl a i n t p u r s u a n t t o R u le 1 2 ( c ) o f t h e Fed . R. C i v . P . , o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y f o r
t h e m e d JR an ° r d a r P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 6 ( c ) o f
? y • P - s t a y d i s c o v e r y . R e t u r n d a t e 3 / 1 4 / 9 7 . (kw) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 2 1 / 9 7 ]
DECLARATION o f J e n n i f e r K. Brown b y F e d e r i c o F. Pena U q
D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n s u p p o r t o f [2 4 - 1 ] m o t i o n , [ 2 4 - 2 ] '
m o t i o n f o r summary ju d g m e n t and [ 2 4 - 3 ] m o t i o n an o r d e r
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 6 ( c ) o f t h e F e d . R. C i v . P. t o s t a v
d i s c o v e r y , (kw) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 2 1 / 9 7 ] y
[ E d i t d a t e 0 4 / 2 2 / 9 7 ]
MEMORANDUM b y F e d e r i c o F. P en a , U . S . Dept/ T r a n s p o r t a i n
? u § ^ ° f [ 2 4 - 2] - ° t i o n Pf o r s S m S S n
o f S ! I ? p n 1 ™o t l o n an o r d e r P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 6 ( c )
r_ 5 he y e d ' R ' , C l v - p - t o s t a y d i s c o v e r y , (kw)[ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 2 1 / 9 7 ] y
REPLY MEMORANDUM b y F e d e r i c o F. P en a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a
m f u r t h e r s u p p o r t o f r e : [ 2 4 - 1 ] m o t i o n , [ 2 4 - 2 ] m o t i o n f o r
S u T r i L c ) 1 a ? d/ 2 ^ 31 m° t i o n an o r d e r p u r s u a n t ° t o ^ ° r
R ' C lV ' P - t 0 S t a y d i s c o v e r y . <*„,
f o r ^ u ^ s b y * “ ” • , (Answer dueJ /SJ t o r U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a , f o r F e d e r i c o F Pena )
[EMrJndate'oi/25/S?rd C°mplaint ; SummOTS led)
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 4
A - 4
Proceedings include all events.
1:96cv3967 Fiorillo v. Pena, et al
4 / 2 4 / 9 7 28
APPEALCLOSED MAG
7 / 2 1 / 9 7 29
7 / 2 1 / 9 7 30
7 / 2 2 / 9 7 31
8 / 1 / 9 7 32
8 / 1 1 / 9 7 33
9 / 9 / 9 7 34
9 / 1 0 / 9 7 35
9 / 1 0 / 9 7 - -
9 / 1 0 / 9 7 36
9 / 1 8 / 9 7 37
9 / 1 9 / 9 7 - -
Docket as of
DEMAND f o r j u r y t r i a l b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o (cd)
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 4 / 2 5 / 9 7 ]
SCHEDULING ORDER s e t t i n g D i s c o v e r y c u t o f f 1 0 / 3 / 9 7 •
? I aKl i n e Kf ° L f ^ l i n 9 ° f a11 m o t i o n s 9 / 2 6 / 9 7 ; P r e t r i a l o r d e r t o b e s u b m i t t e d on o r b e f o r e 1 1 / 1 4 / 9 7 ; T r i a l r e a d y
d e a d l i n e 1 1 / 2 1 / 9 7 • J o i n i n g o f p a r t i e s , a m en d in g o f
p l e a d i n g s on 8 / 1 5 / 9 7 ; ( s i g n e d b y J u d g e John G. K o e l t l )
; C o p i e s m a i l e d (cd) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 7 / 2 2 / 9 7 ]
MEMORANDUM OPINION # 7 8 9 5 2 , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o
d i s m i s s p o r t i o n s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o
t i m e l y p u r s u e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s i s d e n i e d - t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s
r e g a r d i n g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n i s d e n i e d ; t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s
, t h S EE° comP l a i n t f i l e d b y M a r t i n i s g r a n t e d - t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a l l o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s
r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r EEO c o m p l a i n t i s g r a f t e d
S i g n e d b y Ju d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) ; C o p i e s m a i l e d . ?kw)
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 7 / 2 3 / 9 7 ] '
O rder t h a t c a s e be r e f e r r e d t o t h e C l e r k o f C o u r t f o r
t Ma9 i s t r a t e Ju d g e f o r s e t t l e m e n t ( s i g n e d b y
J u d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) R e f e r r e d t o M a g i s t r a t e Judcre q h a r n n
G r u b m (cd) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 7 / 2 3 / 9 7 ] 9 ° 9 S h a r o n
ANSWER b y F e d e r i c o F. P en a , U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a t o t h e
s e c o n d amended c o m p l a i n t ; F irm o f : US A t t o r n e y bv
a t t o r n e y J e n n i f e r Kay Brown f o r d e f e n d a n t s (cd)
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 8 / 0 5 / 9 7 ]
° f _ r e c o J:d o f p r o c e e d i n g s f i l e d b e f o r e J u d e g
K o e l t l f o r d a t e s o f A p r i l 9 , 1 9 9 7 ( j p ) y
T r a n s c r i p t o f r e c o r d o f p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e J u d g e K o e l t l
f i l e d f o r d a t e s o f J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 ( jp )
f ^ EL c h a t Caf e I?6 r e f e r r e d t o C ase P r o c e s s i n g A s s i s t a n t
f o r A s s i g n m e n t o f a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e f o r T r i a l s ( s i g n e d b v
J u d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) (kk) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 1 1 / 9 7 ] ^
p ° ? * S E ° F JSSfCNMENT t o M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e H enry B.
P i tm a n e n d o r s e d on o r d e r o f r e f e r e n c e t o M a g i s t r a t e Judcre
R e f e r r e d f o r T r i a l (kk) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 1 1 / 9 7 ] 9
C o n s e n t t o p r o c e e d b e f o r e a M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e . . M a g i s t r a t e
J u d g e P i tm a n was a s s i g n e d t h i s c a s e on 9 / 9 / 9 7 . ( s i g n e d b v
J u d g e Joh n G. K o e l t l ) (kk) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 1 1 / 9 7 ] ^
C o n s e n t t o p r o c e e d b e f o r e a M a g i s t r a t e ( s i g n e d b v Ju d c r e
John G. K o e l t l ) (cd) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 1 9 / 9 7 ] 9
T e l e - c o n f e r e n c e h e l d b e f o r e M ag-Ju d ge G r u b i n . (kg)
January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 5
A - 5
Proceedings include all events.
1:96cv3967 Fiorillo v. Pena, et al
9 / 1 9 / 9 7 38
9 / 1 9 / 9 7 39
9 / 1 9 / 9 7 41
9 / 1 9 / 9 7 42
9 / 2 4 / 9 7 40
9 / 2 9 / 9 7 43
1 0 / 1 / 9 7 44
APPEALCLOSED MAG
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 2 2 / 9 7 ]
F i n a l Judgment f o r A p p e a l “d j c ^ t E n t r ^ d l ^ O S / I v f ? ^ ° f
MEMORANDUM o f LAW b y U . S . D e p t / T r a n s p o r t a i n o p p o s i t i o n t o
I r r e d i n f ? r r e a r g ™ n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e Courte r r e d i n i t s r u l i n g s on 3 / 1 3 / 9 7 , w i t h r e s p e c t t o
c o n s i d e r i n g D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t io n f o r Judgment on t h e
P l e a d i n g s and d i s c o v e r y w h i l e s a i d m o t i o n i s p e n d i n g and
f o r s u c h o t h e r and f u r t h e r r e l i e f a s t h e C ourt d e e m f ' i u S t
5 4 ? h ? r<M e r ( i n t 5 e A l t e 5n a t i v e , f o r an o r d e r u n d e r ^ R u l e 5 4 ( b ) ( d j c ) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 2 3 / 9 7 ]
b y Anne M‘ F i ° r i l l o f o r an o r d e r p u r s t o
dhe FRCP g r a n t i n g r e v i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t ' s
d e c i s i o n o f J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d i r e c t i n o
e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t and f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n 9
S r p dHl a y ° f ®u ch ^ud9 ment on t h e c l a i m s o f p l l i n t i f f w h i c h w e r e d i s m i s s e d , r e t u r n d a t e 8 / 2 7 / 9 7 ( d i e ) n i c n
[ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 2 5 / 9 7 ] J
MEMORANDUM o f LAW b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o i n s u p p o r t o f [41-1]
m o t i o n f o r an o r d e r p u r s t o R u l e 54 (b) o f t h e FRCP g r a n t i n o
r e v i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n o f J u l y 18 1 9 9 7 U i 71 9
m o t i o n ( d j e ) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 2 5 / 9 7 ] ' [41_2 ]
SCHEDULING ORDER: d e p o s i t i o n d i s c o v e r y i s s t a y e d p e n d i n a
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n f o r r e a r g u m e n t / R u l e 5 4 ( c ) 9
o t h e r f t h a n c u r ^e n t l y d e ,f ° r e J u d 9 e K o e l t l . A l l d i s c o v e r y o t h e r t h a n d e p o s i t i o n s s h a l l p r o c e e d f o r t h w i t h - nn l a i - o r y
t h a n 1 0 / 1 4 / 9 7 , e a c h a i d e s h a l l s u b m i t t o t h e c i u r t a l e « . r
r a i s i n g a n y e x i s t i n g d i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g d ocu m en t
b e f o r e i o / 2 4 / 9 ?P° ? h 1Ve l e t t e r s s h a 1 1 b e s u b m i t t e d on o r
2 4 / 9 7 ; he p a r t i e s s h a H r e p o r t f o r a s t a t u s / d i s c o v e r y c o n f e r e n c e a t 9 : 3 0 a . m. on 1 1 / 3 / 9 7 (
s i g n e d b y M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e Henry B. P i tm a n ) • C o p i e s
m a i l e d , (ae ) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 2 5 / 9 7 ] ' ^
MEMORANDUM OPINION # 7 9 3 6 5 d e n y i n g [ 4 1 - 1 ] m o t i o n f o r an
PUf ? R u l e 5 4 (b) o f t h e FRCP g r a n t i n g r e v i s i o n o f t h e C ourt s d e c i s i o n o f J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 a n d d e n v in n \&-\
m o t i o n ( S i g n e d b y J u d g e John G K o e l t l ) . 9
(kw) [ E n t r y d a t e 0 9 / 3 0 7 9 7 ] ) ; C° p i e S m a i l e d -
b- s s s r s i i -
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 6
A - 6
1 0 / 2 1 / 9 7 45
Proceedings
1:96cv3 967 include all events.
Fiorillo v. Pena, et al
1 0 / 2 9 / 9 7 46
1 0 / 3 1 / 9 7 47
1 0 / 3 1 / 9 7 48
1 0 / 3 1 / 9 7 - -
1 2 / 2 9 / 9 7 49
APPEALCLOSED MAG
F i l e d Memo-Endorsement on l e t t e r d a t e d 1 0 / 1 4 / 9 7 from
J e n n i f e r K. Brown, g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r an
e x t e n s i o n t o 1 0 / 2 0 / 9 7 t o i n f o r m t h e C ourt o f a n y
o u t s t a n d i n g d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e s ( s i g n e d b y M a g i s t r a t e
J u d g e H enry B. P i tm a n ) (kw) [ E n t r y d a t e 1 0 / 2 2 / 9 7 ]
^ 0RDER ° f P a r t i a l V o l u n t a r y D i s m i s s a l o f
p l a i n t i f f ' s r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s w i t h p r e j u d i c e and w i t h o u t
c o s t s o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , p u r s t o R u l e 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; ( s i a n e d bv
M a g i s t r a t e Ju d g e H enry B. P i tm a n ) ( d i e ) 5 y
[ E n t r y d a t e 1 0 / 3 0 / 9 7 ]
Order o f d i s m i s s a l o f t h i s c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e i n i t s
e n t i r e t y The C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r j u d g S e i f
^ r ? r d l n g l y ,( S 19 n e d b Y M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e H enry B. P i tm a n ) •
s e n t o r i g i n a l t o J . C . on 1 1 / 3 / 9 7 . ( ae) [ E n t r y d a t e i l / 0 ? / 9 7 ]
S ? 2 d EM / 3 0 / « 7 PU? h Uant C° t h e „ ? o u “ ' s o f D i s m i s s a ld a t e d 1 0 / 3 0 / 9 7 t h i s c a s e i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e i n
t s e n t i r e t y . ( s i g n e d b y James M. P a r k i s o n ) ; M a i l e d
c o p i e s and n o t i c e o f r i g h t t o a p p e a l . EOD: 1 1 / 5 / 9 7 (kw)
[ E n t r y d a t e 1 1 / 0 5 / 9 7 ] ' K ‘
C ase c l o s e d (kw) [ E n t r y d a t e 1 1 / 0 5 / 9 7 ]
NOTICE OF APPEAL b y Anne M. F i o r i l l o ; from [ 4 8 - 1 ] ju d g m e n t
o r d e r . C o p i e s o f n o t i c e o f a p p e a l m a i l e d t o Attorney(S7 o f
U s ? ^ ’' J e n n i f e r Kay Brown • F ee Pd. $ 1 0 5 . 0 0 , r e c # 3 0 4 6 6 1 .
Docket as of January 15, 1998 11:09 am Page 7
A - 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
— x
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
-against-
Plaintiff,
FEDERICO F. PENA, Secretary,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
96 Civ. 3967 (JGK)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
------------ x
SECOND AMFNDFD COMP! atnjt
Piaintiff, by her attorneys. files this Second Amended Compia.n, pursuant to Rule
15(a) together with a motion for leave to amend which must be freely gtven. and alleges as
follows:
I- INTRODUCTION
1- This is an action against defendant Federico F. Pena. Secretary. United States
Department of Transportatton for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, back pay.
g costs and attorneys fees ar.smg from defendants unlawful employment
dtscrtm,nation because of plaintiff, age and ses and re ta lia te viola.,on of T,tie VII of
■he Civil Rights Ac, of 1961. as amended. 42 U.S.C. tj 2000e. „ (Title VII). and in
violation of the Age Discrimination ,n Employment Act. 29 U.S.C. S 621. a seq (ADEA).
defendant s failure to properly and timely process plaintiff's EEO complaint, in
A - 8
violation of Title VII, ADEA. 29 CFR Pan 1614, and the Adtnintstra.tve Procedures Ac,.
5 U.S.C. § 555(b) and §§ 701-706.
II. JURISDICTION
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C § 2000e, « seqq the Age Dtscriminatton in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 « seq.; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361: 28 U.S.C
Section 1331, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) and § 706(1).
III. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Anne M. Fiorillo is a female citizen of the United States, residing in
New York State. She is over the age of 40. She has been an employee of the United States
Coas, Guard since Februaty 1991. She has been a federal employee since June 1956.
4- Defendant Federico F. Pena is the Secretary of the United States Department
of Transportation, a federal agency. He is sued herein in his official capacity. All references
to the United States Department of Transportation, herein include reference to the
defendant, the United States Coast Guard,
on its behalf.
its management officials and any others acting
IV EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE R F M F n iP g
° " Sep,ember 6- 1995 filed an EEO complaint alleging age and sex
discrimination and reprisal A copy o, the administrative Complain, of Discrimination is
2
A - 9
attached hereto as Exhibit A. and it is incoiporated herein as iffu.lv set out. The complain,
was received by the Departmental Office of Civil Rights of the of the Office of the
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation on December 15, 1996.
On February 26, 1996 the Department of Transportation issued a final
decision rejecting the first three allegations of the administrative complaint, but accepting
the fourth allegation. A copy of the decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The original complaint herein was filed on May 24, 1996, within 90 days of the
receip, of that decision as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-17(c), and was limited to the three
allegations that were rejected. As of the date of filing the Firs, Amended Complain,, more
than 180 days have passed since the September 6, 1995, date of filing the administrative
complain, and the December 15, 1995, date of its receip, by the Departmental Office of
Civil Rights. No final action had been taken by the Department of Transportation with
regard to the fourth allegation in the administrative complaint within that time. The
expiration of 180 days since the filing and/or receipt of the foimal written complaint satisfies
the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirements with regard to the fourth allegation
in the complaint under 42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-16(c).
8. Pla, n, iff is employed by, he Unned Stales Coast Guard. From February 1991
through November 1,95 she was emploved a, the MLC Atlantic (North, Command.
Governors Island. New York as a GS-12 Personnel Management Specialist. She is
currently employed by the United Stales Coast Guard as the Chief of Training. CSPC
3
A - 1 0
(cpm), Washington, D.C. at the GS-13 level.
^ The events *mn8 rise to thls complaint aU occurred at Governor s Island.
10. At all times mentioned herein, Vincent Martin, Norma Lozada and James
Whack, were employees of the United States Coast Guard, MLC Atlantic (North)
Command, Governor’s Island, New York, and were acting within the scope of their
employment as employees of defendant, Vincent Martin and Norma Lozada were plaintiffs
supervisors. James Whack is the EEO Officer of the Governor s Island facility.
11. Plaintiff is an excellent employee and. prior to the incidents complained of.
received performance evaluations of "distinguished" throughout her career with the Coast
Guard.
12. In September 1994 plaintiff was given a large package by her supervisor
Vincent Martin (Martin) which contained an MSPB appeal by a former Coast Guard
employee and was told by Martin to prepare a response on behalf of the Coast Guard.
13 Plaintiff was not told by Martin what her role would be with respect to the
appeal.
U. Plaintiff was not given the same level of mentoring, advice, assistance and
training with respect to preparing the appeal as was given to younger employees.
1?. Plaintiff had never before acted as Agency Representative in an MSPB
proceeding.
16 Mar,m is hi*hlv experienced in representing the Coast Guard in MSPB
proceedings.
I ' As plaintiffs supervisor. was Martin s dun- to provide her with ass,stance
A - 1 1
and advice when assigning her a new duty.
18. As plaintiffs supervisor, i, was Martin’s duty to insure that plaint® had
appropriate training courses before he assigned her a new duty.
19. Before being assigned by Martin as agency representative in an MSPB appeal,
younger employees attended courses in "Effective Advocacy at MSPB Hearings" and/or
"Federal Dispute Resolution". These are highly relevant courses for preparing to represent
the agency in an MSPB appeal.
20. Martin recommended younger employees for those courses, yet Martin never
recommended plaintiff for those courses. Plaintiff never received those courses.
As plaintiffs supervisor, Martin was responsible for ensuring that plaintiff
received necessary training.
22. Martin took younger female employees with him to MSPB hearings before
assigning them to the role of agency representative.
Plaintiff was never taken by Martin to an MSPB hearing.
24 DeSpiK numerous ^ Plaintiff starting immediately after her receipt
°f -he assignment, defendant Marnn declined to mee, with plaintiff to give her ass,stance.
.taming and guidance. The lack of tratning and guidance cause plaintiff to feel tncreasingly
stressed and anxious.
On November 1. 1994 plamtiff agatn asked Martin for guidance w,
to the MSPB assignment. Martin did
with respect
not meet with plaintiff.
26. Failing once again to obta m any assistance, she became extremely anxious and
suffered heart palpitations and had to leave work
on an emergency basis to visit her
5
A - 12
physician.
27. On November 22. 1994 plaintiff me. with Nonna Lozada. Deputy Chief.
Personnel (Lozada), and informed her of her frustration in failing to receive any asststance
or guidance from Martin with respect to the MSPB assignment and its negative effect on
her health.
28. Lozada failed to take any steps to remedy the situation.
On December 1 - 2, 1994, plaintiff successfully represented the Coast Guard
at the MSPB hearing. Martin was not present.
30. From the time plaintiff received the MSPB appeal through her successful
representation of the Coast Guard at the appeal, plaintiff suffered continuous pain in her
back and legs for which she received medical treatment. Plaintiff had no. suffered such
symptoms previously.
After the hearing, plaintiff requested compensatory time for the time she
spent in preparation for the hearing beyond the normal workweek.
32. Plaintiff diligently prepared for the hearing. She spent over thirty hours of
her own time researching and learning MSPB procedure and law.
33. On December 6. 1994. pla,miff was told by Martin that he would no. approve
her request for compensators time.
34 Compensatory „me was granted ,o younger female employees assigned to act
as agency representatives in MSPB hearings
33- On December 6 plaintiff lold Martin tha, she believed that he was treating
her differently from vounger employees and tha, she was considering filing an EEO
6
A - 1 3
complaint based on age.
36. In December 1994 plaintiff told Lozada that she was plannmg on writing a
memo documenting her experiences with the MSPB hearing and her failure to obtain
appropriate support and training.
37. Lozada did not tell plaintiff not to write the memo.
38. On January 9. 1995 plaintiff submitted a ’'Lessons Learned" memo through her
supervisory chain documenting her experiences. The memo was explicitly documentary and
informational in nature and was not a formal complaint It is attached as Exhibt C.
39. In her "Lessons Learned" memo, plaintiff wrote of her belief that she had not
received adequate support and training and that she was not treated fairly and equitably.
Plaintiff also stated that although she was denied compensator time, other employees were
granted such time in similar circumstances.
40. "Lessons Learned" memos are a common device used in the Coast Guard to
document or suggest how programs or tasks could be improved on the future based on what
was learned from past experiences.
41 DUn"8 ‘h,S per'od Plain,iff con'inued to experience anxiety , stress, elevated
blood pressure and chest pains and was under medical care.
42. In January' 1995. Martin was given the the "Lessons Learned" memo to
respond to and he "investigated" the matters the memo including the allegations about
the lack of support plaintiff was given in preparation for the MSPB hearing.
43. The investigation tncluded tntervtewing plaintiffs co-workers and taking
statements of some kind.
7
A - 1 4
44. Martin's investigation created a stressful atmosphere for plaintiff.
45. Martin treated plaintiff in an humiliating and degrading manner in retaliation
for her "lessons learned" memo and for her allegations that he discriminated against her on
the basis of age and sex.
46. On March 7. 1995, plaintiff agatn told Lozada that Martin was treating her
differently from younger employees in that he did no. provide her with tratning. mentoring
or guidance during the MSPB appeal.
47. On March 9, 1995 James Whack. EEO Officer (Whack), showed plaintiff a
copy of an EEO complain, filed by Martin, naming plauttiff as the discriminating official,
and alleging that plaintiff discriminated against him on the basis of gender.
48. Martin filed the EEO complain, against plaintiff in retaliation for her "Lessons
Learned" memo and her allegations that he dtscriminated against her on the basis of age
and sex.
49. At that meeting, and on several occasions afterwards. Whack told plaintiff that
there was a basis for her filing an EEO complaint against Martin based on age
discrimination and reprisals and she should not be concerned about time Imitations because
Martins conduct represented a continuing violation.
50. Martin s EEO complaint was assigned by Whack to an EEO counselor and
was processed expeditiously.
51- On April 6. 1995 pin,miff contacted Whack and told him she wished to file
an EEO complaint based on age and reprisals.
52- Whack did no, assign a counselor to plaintiff as required by EEO regulations.
8
A - 15
52a. On Angus. 16, 1995, plaintiff received a performance rating of only
"meritorious," which was not an accurate reflection of her performance and
accomplishments, for the rating period ending March 31, 1995. This performance rating was
given as part of the continuing pattern of discrimination against plaintiff because of her age
(over 40) and her sex, and in retaliation against her for her efforts to complain against
Instead, he handled her complaint himself.
discrimination and earlier acts of reprisals. This inaccurate evaluation harmed plaintiff by
rating her lower than others in the Coast Guard, preventing her from receivmg any award
or recognition for her achievements during the time period, and jeopardizing her chances
for promotions in the future if she were in competition with others with higher ratings (a
likely occurrence at the higher grade levels).
53. Governing EEO regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(b), which tmplements Title
VII and the Federal Sector Complaint Processing Manual (EEO MD-110) Chapter 2 § II.A,
explicitly state that a complainant be provided with written notification of her rights at the
initial counseling session. Whack failed to provide plaintiff with written notification of he,
rights in a timely fashion under the reguiat.ons.
54. On September 6. 1995. at the ms.stence of plaintiffs counsel. Whack finally
provided plaintiff with written notification of her rights and wtth her notification of her right
to file a discrimination complaint.
55. Governing EEO regulations. 29 C.F.R. jj 1614.105(d). EEO MD-110 Chapter
- « I1.A.2. and Coast Guard EEO C.MDT Procedure Manual (EEO Manual) Chapter 4 §
B.2.a.(2) state that the counselor mus, conduct a final interview with complainant within 30
9
A - 1 6
days of the initial counseling session and, at that tune, provide written notification of right
to file a discrimination complaint.
56. On numerous occasions, both verbally and in writing, plaintiff asked Whack
to end the counselling period and issue her notification of her rights and responsibilities and
notification of her right to file a discrimination complaint. Likewise. Whack did not respond
to plaintiffs counsel’s requests for such documentation.
57. On September 6, 1995, six months after plaintiff first contacted Whack, at a
meeting between Whack, Captain Leber, plaintiff and plaintiffs counsel, Whack finally
provided plaintiff with copies of the right to file complaint and notice of rights and
responsibilities.
58. At the September 6. 1995 meeting. Whack asked plaintiff to sign receipts
stating that she received the documentation on July 27, 1995. Plaintiff refused to do so.
59. Plaintiff insisted Whack accept her formal complaint that day. Whack
provided a barely legible complaint form to plaintiff and she filled it in. Whack stated that
he would forward ,, to the defendant's Regional Office in an expeditious manner.
60. EEO Manual. Chapter 4. 5 B.5.C. provides that the EEO Officer forward the
formal complaint of discrimmation to the Commandant within four (4) working days of
receipt. The Commandant is to then foiward the complaint to the Department of
Transportation (DOT),
61. Both plaintiff and counsel made numerous calls to Whack in an attempt to
ascertain whether he had properly processed and forwarded the complaint but received no
response.
10
A - 1 7
62. To plaintiffs knowledge, her complaint was never forwarded to DOT by
Whack or any other Coast Guard employee.
63. Plaintiffs counsel provided a copy of the complaint to DOTs Regional Office
on December 18, 1995.
64. Whack’s actions were an attempt to restrain plaintiff from filing a complaint
in violation of 29 CFR § 1614.105(g).
65. Defendant’s delay in processing plaintiffs EEO complaint was unreasonable
and unnecessary.
66. Defendant failed to process plaintiffs EEO complaint in accordance with the
applicable regulations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
67. Defendant’s failure to process plaintiffs EEO complaint within the statutorily
mandated guidelines was deliberate and dilatory.
in
68. Defendant processed Vincent Martin’s EEO complaint in a timely fashion and
compliance with its statutory and Department of Transportat.on guidelines and
timeframes.
69 Defendants failure to timely process plaintiffs EEO complaint was in
violation of both Title VII. the ADEA and EEO regulations.
70 As a rest,It of defendant’s dilatory and unreasonable delay in processing
plaintiff s EEO complaint, plaintiff was seriously prejudiced and suffered stress, anxiety and
a significant deterioration of her medical condition.
70a. The acts complained of herein are part of a continuing pattern of
d,scrim,nalion and retaliation taken against plaintiff because of her age. sex. and because
11
A - 18
she has attempted to and has complained of acts of discrimination and reprisal.
71. Following the filing of the Complaint herein, through discovery- plaintiff
obtained a copy of documents supporting the foregoing.
72. Exhibit D to this complaint and incorporated by reference as if fully set out
herein is Martin’s February 26, 1995 EEO Complaint.
73. Exhibit E to this complaint and incorporated by reference as if fully set out
herein is Martin’s July 10, 1995 EEO Complaint which attached his February 26, 1995
Complaint.
74. Exhibit F to this complaint and incorporated by reference as if fully set out
herein is Martin’s February 7, 1995 Memo reporting on plaintiffs Lessons Learned memo
and its allegations including those concerning his training and assistance of plaintiff during
the time of her preparation of the MSPB appeal and her request for compensatory time.
Martin's EEO Complaints of July 10. 1995 and February 26, 1995 refer to this February 7,
1995 memo.
Exhibit G to this complaint and incorporated by reference as if fully set out
herein is the Settlement Agreement entered into by defendant with Martin resolving his
EEO Complaint and making findings of fact on plaintiffs Lessons Learned memo and the
allegations contained therein concerning the events that transpired during her preparation
for the MSPB hearing.
76. In entering into this Settlement, the defendant violated plaintiffs rights and
made find,ngs adverse to her. including a finding discounting all of the allegations contained
m her Lessons Learned memo It made these findings based upon the investigation done
12
A - 19
by plaintiffs superior, Martin, in violation of the requirements of the regulations that
findings shall be based upon an impartial factual record. 29 CFR §1614.108(b)
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
PLAINTIFFS
f ir s t c a u s e o f a c t io n
UNDER TITLE VII
77. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 76 with the
same force and effect as if set forth herein.
78. Defendant has discriminated against plaintiff in the terms and conditions of
her employment on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII. This includes defendant’s
processing of the Martin’s (a male) EEO complaint against plaintiff, in a favorable manner
while failing and refusing to process her complaint properly.
79. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered injury and damages as a
result of defendant’s practices of sex discrimination.
PLAINTIFFS
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
_ UNDER THF-ADEA
80. Plaintiff repeals, renerates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 79 with the
same force and effect as if set forth herein
81 Defendant has discriminated against plaintiff in the terms and conditions of
her employment on the basis of her age ,n violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.
81 By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered injury and damages as a
13
A - 2 0
result of defendant’s practices of age discrimination.
PLAINTIFFS
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR REPRISALS
83. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 82 with the
same force and effect as if set forth herein.
84. Defendant has retaliated against plaintiff on the basis of her having
complained against discrimination.
85. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered injury and damages as a
result of defendant’s acts of reprisal.
PLAINTIFFS
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Ar~r
86. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 85 with the
same force and effect as if set forth herein.
87. Defendant has acted in a dilatory and unreasonable manner in its failure to
timely process plaintiffs EEO complaint Defendant’s handling of plaintiffs EEO complaint
lacked evenhandedness.
88. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff has been seriously prejudiced and
damaged.
VI. RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks judgment and relief as follows:
14
A - 2 1
1. An order declaring the actions of defendant to be discriminatory and unlawful.
2. Injunctive relief, including the voiding of Martin’s EEO Complaint and the
Settlement Agreement resolving it under Title VII, and orders that defendant comply with
the requirements ot 29 CFR §1614 in the future.
3. Lost earnings.
4. Compensatory damages.
5. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
6. Such other relief as is just, proper, and equitable and warranted by the facts
and law.
A jury trial is demanded.
VALERIE A. VOORHEES, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
2166 Broadway
New York, New York 10CP4
(212) 877-3435
By: _________ _
Valerie A. Voorhees (VV7062)
GOODMAN & ZUCHLEWSKI
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5225
New York, New York 10110-5197
(212) 869-1940
B> ____- - ^ ^
Geoffrey A. Mort (GM5254)
15
A - 2 2
EXHIBIT A
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
A- 2 3
o
A- 2 4
A - 2 5
April 6, 1995
EEO Complaint based on Age and Reprisal
To: EEO Officer
From: Anne Fiorillo
Personnel Management Specialist
pc
I am filing an EEO Complaint because I believe 7 ham- «---
pattern of discrimination against me by Mr Vincent h ^ T V ^ l t 'KtlZn °f a “ n^uing yeas old).
m September through December 1994 as the a JL bbltant manner during my assignment
which his d i s p a m t e ^ S S r ^ ^ ^ l S d £ £ ^
rime in the interest of maintaining offiolmnnnv ult#. • n? ® 30 conplaint at the
V I995 relatmg my e x p e n d ! f E t f £ * * * a « £ on Jan ,^
Deconba 1994 that I would be w r it in g 1 “ told Ms.Inzada in mid- ^
appeal. I was informed on March 9 1995 that lot exPencnce in the MSPB
making unwanted and f ^ g ^ a S ^ ' “ *“ .» ® complato
t t z r s ? ^ to *■*
process7since ̂ ^ ^ t h ^ d f a “ d t o been an on-going
present time. During the time Mr. Martin was my su n ^ rT h ^ halfyear P^od to the
dealing with me on a one to one basis ̂he 815011 ^ o s t no time in
with the younger female enployeS It { Z Z r Z f T u COnsida*>'* *nount offfine
MSPB hearing t o , , I t * ™ °T J ** t e
of occasions to management that Mr Martin not receive. I did state on a number
MSPB appeal, and that I was being tr^to difiSnto S T 'S ? SUpPon “** guidance on the
I was concerned about its impact on my performance ̂ 60,18 S1V“ *“ ^PP0". and thatZZSSSZT* wd “* ,fc
^ b T : r d S t : ^ ^ S r * * * Mro has performed
performance evaluations. I was given thZ i • S documented in my previous
MSPB appeal on or about September 12, >Smy " a “ mp<«4 < S r )
technical jargon being presented as evidence The evalnati f ex ^ a high level of ^
“ - S w
Pno? » W s ^ t o t n l y r a e r a ^ o ^ c h f PB ^ ,huS ^ no P™r experience
accompany Mr. Martin as technrcal represenr^eT w fm appCals Was that 1 did
Settied before " 801 *° *>>' hearing stage. W o r n fe ,993-
A - 2 6
preparing for and presenting the case before t u j
presenting a case and conducting myself within a leml fn n° or eaqjerience in
assignment without so much as an explanation 0f wh*r { was dwown into this MSPB
plan developed. Mr. Martin failed mv° lv e i * * * S y n o
taew this was a new assignment outsidTof my L a o f S f i S ? dance to me’ d t a g h he
achons without any explanation of their sienifiL^! 1 ocpf ^ c- 1 toId to certain
understanding of all S i *as invo v T m A1 WDlted °*austively hard to
Martin consisted of c m s o ^ c o Z S l I S o t e L ? ^ 1 » “ *"<■ i T
correspondence already prepared on the c a L ^ n L / comments after the fact on
superficial or in n e £ of p J L i t L J S m h S i!’® ’0'* ^ Man” « " * ™
the infoimation could be meaningful or u s ^ T T S j h U ^ u e ” * * * for “ 50
p e m o n n e l^ S c e s ^ T h T f a ^ ^ '^ lT O d ” “ nducted md Promoted unfair and prohibited
discriminatory and d i s p a m t e ^ ^ ^ ^ J '* * > W « « to be Mr. l t £ '
“ 3013 of reprisal and harassment against m e : ^ my ^ 30(1 “ ®inued violation
I did not have die teaming
complex performance based anneal * Slgnment t0 represent the agenev in /
Vincent Martin mid September 1994 in c o n t ^ ^ W)vt ̂ VCn t0 me ^ my supervisor
female employees were given formal re, ^ ^ Mamn made sure that thevounpn-
assignments. The following facts illustrate d h ^ ™ 8 ““ prep3red them theifTob
Systems Protection Board
Researdh^Devefopmmt S ^ . X ' ^ T ' 5 “ ' ^ ^ " ^ n ^ ’h .d .e 031'
W ^ h f y r o S ̂ g ^ u ^ t e /Sfd “ t a kl S ? f Vincent ^ Mvc had two
have W before roy p̂ion£$ te d ,™ o“ £ Z f ! " * £ * Va* heW <°
an Effective Advocacy at MSPB Heannps” a V? hn Cmarc. case* ^ Golinski attended
Mamn attended ''Effective Advocacy at MSPB " .* C Sprin® of I993. Mr.
courae is advertised as "An intensive'erout^of s ^ d S ^ May 2I' 25' l99a ™ s
presentation of cases before the U s c Spcc,! hzed mstruction on development and
Both Mr. Martin and Ms g£ £ a n ^ ^ T „ “ n B° 3rd" (Artael
Resolution" held on Aueust 23-26 19W r ^ 'r h S’1? 3 t0gcther on "F«ierai Dispute
been beneficial to roe before be*g W s Z"* * ^ « “ » would mT
a tm tW ty t T u P t o i ' ^ I T t r ^ 3ddilional oooreos and conferences
S . ' S s r,s m “ ™ to
(4) Regarding conferences 1 anended two c o n f e r „Wch ^ ^ r f ̂
A- 2 7
addressing the then cunent issues s„d ___ •
£S#fe
preferential treatment o f younger fc m a lT c ^ fo y ^ cxcIusivel)' lowing his
(5) Four years ago on March 26-28 1991 t »**
informarion. There ” 0,Wh':-Job or in p r e c t r ^ ^ L
on any issues related to this case Furth^fmCnt|,°r refevant darning for me from Mr Mart;
a « n S f ?8 f the “ “Pc >“ * " “ vely no t S ?
agenda that clearly show there was very l if te d Y n ! ^ x U ™ * attached a copy 0f the255̂rĵ fironiy
s mPr s r r S o L o
another older female employee, Ms ManYf-fof 35 aSenc'y representative alone with
b«t of my knowledge, no one other than myselfbL serJL?8^ representatives? To the
performance based MSPB appeal without any fo n S S g ^ in a
b lack of support
January_9,' T s s f ^ N o ^ ^ Learned" memo of
successfirlly handle the Bellemare appeal ," ? )^ rac adequate support to
eredit. Mr. Martin discriminated a S m! ^ ' d'd handle i" to my own
t0 “* -V0U"gCT Professionaffemale e r ^ t o ^ 7 , thc ^ hc Provided
mentoring and pereona! suppon * * » * « £ Z 2 £ ^ % ~ * - 2 «
A - 2 8
appeal, Mr. Bellemare brought up many charges f o d i f i w °f cffort,°" my Pa* In his
ancllary pomts in ««<* he d Z c d hk S b S b ^ h ! ^ ^ broug*« "P 2,1 <mds o f
This added to the complexity of the appea ls t S f ^ p r o c e d u r e s not followed,
charges and presenting the agency's * ,^asTresponsib:le for addressing all o f his
process in an appeal for t ^ T l t d T o to ,Cam «* M
This ass'gnment was of a legal nature, a r f d T h a v e ^ M h f t ® ag? (y representative,
limited support I did receive from Mr. Martin and hnw S ’ backgroun.d- 111 describing the
Martin provided to others it should be noted that- M xir^ supporT differed from that Mr
help. He has, however, made himself available tn nth«- when 1 most needed his
was unapproachable a, »e most &
p r o v i d e l ^ t h L£amed mOT0) he
developed (almost exclusively without his h e l ^ 6^ ! mU? of the ro^erial which I
included questions for the ^ " t r i a l s / documents
preparation notes and documents and te S d ly e ^ h i S ? ^ 2PCning ^ ^ e n t s , case
needed subsrawid'verbal e * p t a “ ^ in written words that
sampling of instances showing exanrpies of M r ^ n ' s Mu^re' « a
M em are in “ ^ “naion with the
94 ip which the appellant was to define his issues to t h ^ f w° beJ5?d 0n November 23,
conference Mr. Martin left me a note on a telenhonf ^ ^ ^ ^ ^fore the
prosecute" wherein he cited a particular case 7 v S a motion °n "failure to
speak to him because I did not understand, at thr t f ^ Martm ^ d asked if I could
prosecute" motion. Mr. Martin was coldtnd ,?« ^ ? e appllcatl°n of a "failure to
didn't sit down and Mr. Mart£ ^ 7c£k7i " T e-ve ^ c t w£i me I
case he had c,ted. I informed h i m I \ £ “ * £ bTsti^H ^ if 1 had ^ S e
th°'71?PP ,Cd Mr. Martin said, "I gave you a boZt 2 d "°Vunderstand the concept or
the book, (which I had), but I didn’t S id e L n d ^ 'he book" 1 said "I read
understandable answer and I left his office I was m V dld not provide an
I^ter that day I found on mv chair Nfr B e l l e i ^ n l “ ^ 311 ° f f,ve ™ e s
Mr. Mans, md.carmg he marked Urose s ^ ^ S t ^ u g h T ^ *“
A - 2 9
relevant to the case. This u*c tu~ ..
v '̂ch were a la reeD a c^ 7^ fetim eIsawM r-Monarc's orehearinc, u •
communications ”° »
disotssed at the pte S S S *1 “ «** f e U S n m „
* — “ W . > ™ £ £ £ £ £ . • £ £ ? - » ™
J “ “ i t S S f *> p » . m M ! ,
a a t e « « » s f S & “^̂ Ŝ£3S5Ma:3«
popetual m ento^°wfa ^ vo v̂ement ^ . m S S S S “ e - S nS t0 * '
l^ la n tx Mr. Martin discrimiSed a ^ m l T P rofasi°ncis (i.e. Jodi < S S ^ K*« wsr^ss st
H o ^ v e r ^ o f r a T u ^ n ^ e S r r ' ’ °d I f ™ < * « * « « . ««ch I mad.
d- An important aspect of Mr Martin’c u~i r
communicate with me. A lthou f*T hL s h o l ^ T " Ws rc]uctan“ ®dfor failure to
commurueating with vounger professing) hes,tancy or lack of enthusiasm
de^loped personal r d a t i o S u ^ l t ^ T empl°yees t0 the « o ? S S t e t a
support given older employe*/ ltulg m favoritism and disparate treatment ; . ,
“ “ of t,nK m di“ - - “ W K » k ; —
A - 3 0
- p p ™ atthe most critical times whet I needed his advtce *,d ^
(3) Mr. Martin's lack of support can be summarised as follow*
^ o n what was
Lt e t ? s s . 'S S S S t e .
Thwe was no scheduled review Mn m,:j_
- He said he would meet with me. he dM rJ^ti °5.?V'?ture beforehan i
- Mr. Martin did review d
- There was no discussion and/or c o ^ n S i^ T ei S “ mplaed
an understanding so I could u n d e m a n d f t e ? ° attm?Jt t0 assist me in gainine
■ teon s Learned" memo d e t a i l e d ^ ? £ ? °f ttte **>“ 1 « « taking. ‘ m “"S
preparing this case. ^ amount of research and effort I had to put imo
Connon December i-2 I994
call him during lunch and^ve t o a “ X e ™ h ™ ^ “ t a ^ P ~ o n i L t0
d.d he tnsist I read to him fte q S n s C ^ l t ^ » * * » * * Only t o
deal of anxiety for me as by this time I n e e d e ^ n ^ ^ Wltnes5es- 'Hiis created a great
e T n VCr M aitin never asked h ™ l t T d £ 1hmy Presentati0n- Since tteSrse
^brts or offer praise for a job well done His orftv W ^ o n for my
equitable compensation for the extra time I spent m t h f ^ t0 ** m restricting
summarizes the epitome of his "supped for̂ ° ** “ ■ 71115 ,ack of concern g
trying so often t o ^ h o l T ! ^ support" and my frustration in
pos^onements and promises of re s c h e d u le d ^ e e tin i^ j* ^ rcpeated,y of
informed her t h a ’l ^ . ' h t o t o ^ f p ° v i n g ° , J I ^ ™ prior ,0 lhe hca™g in which I
me any guidance, that I was overwhelmed iith ^ >por1 needed- that he was not aivins
support he gave me could "be pjTm a t to b i? " 6^ ! ' 0'1’ Ihc sum total of the*
focused as much as possible. Lozada's best advise was to try to stay
b. In earlv November of 1994 i j
informed him of my frustration 'because McKcnna m "«ch I
could see how^et',"^ *
A - 3 1
a p p r e h c n s i v f ^ d ^ ^ ^ ^ ; S ' * ” 0™'1 ^ 3ndtoldhim that I was
courtroom proceedings He nHvic^ pcom^ given my lack of experience in ^
^ filte r t a T ^ w T J S S f "b°tt0m * “ ™ “ j® ^ <l«
^ 1 0 had some *? ?**» of Bany Lang
^ r ^ s s 4 t a * ’* “ , “ i ^ . ^ t ' S t e s a r
oonduct m ^df to ^ 10 ask ha advice on how to
examination and what and how to responds y “ "“ “ “I 31,0,11 conducting cross-
" " " , TO.d h W a itin g die « ^ *
40 minutes to s S jfh J m M e ^ l ^ t e ^ S T F° f S ^ Division for approximately
£ “ > * < - » 1 ^ a t e l t ^ o n T h ^ S X i l H a t a ‘T *these issues would be discussed. Mr pninw , . on that same day. where
portfolio of MSPB cases t a £ *
I initiated the meeting with Mr. FoIgiTand the call with rCCOrd' 1 ""ah to state that
never told me to seek the advice of anyone in Leeal d£ £ £ ‘ BaC?n 011 my ovvn- ^ Martin
'' ClCar t e “'ey were unaware o f^ y i n v o l v ^ i * ^ 3 ^ ° f ’lta e
c. REPRISAL FOR MY "LESSONS LEARNED" MEMO
Loamod" memo to Norma L ^ ^ 0J moK̂hoiS i baKd °" mj' "Lessons
My atm was to provide some msights that could S o °f my « !» > « * .
that tune not to file an EEO complauit, although f h a d a S t a ? P' f T an“ ' I chose at
the memo, no one's name was mentioned. 1W „ J ^ , ? T 10 do so- To low key
complaint is an attempt to avoid responsibility fnr w . Martin retaliation in filing an EEO
purnsh me are p S ^ a contuium” 7 h , f d , ^ 0̂ t̂ r ^ -
the reason I stat^offiL^ony'''diL°dM nm m 7 '* ‘ “ '#rievance Previously for
now because Mr. Mania's complain, elevate t £ e | S f f “ V * ' - * * 1 2 0 complaint
S a h o n ^ * * “ 3 ^
INSIGHT C O N C E^G Ŵ oE ^ NECESSARY R^EORMATION AND
0 ) smee my memo was to Norn. Uzada I would Be to Imow the cucumstoica under
A - 32
in apaformance FMS,? S‘Ii? 1,25n?>rcsaited the agency
wthout being settled before U w acttanS ng? ^ tooUgh tte fiiU hearing process
(4) I f the answer to (3) is yes, what fonnal training did they have?
"Lssons Learned^mma ? S ' fe fo “ i f t i ^ ^ ® 01 "K wi*h "V
does he justify giving me the responsibility to a” ™ ™ ™ 0W1 “ ^ “ ces how
or support? ^ y act as agency representative without training
E. I ask for the following as REMEDY-
(1) »*. Manin shonid be cottnseiled on his inappmpna* behavior and actions.
“ f t '■ “ ? **• M -tin for his
written reprimand or a suspension. mc ude officiaI ^ciplmaiy action such as a
C3 ) Management should ensure that Mr Manin cera ™a a ^ ^
hanassment and reprisal against me d2 610111 ^ Either acts of
a written reprimand or a s S ^ n ^ Sh°uld mdude officia] ^ ip linary action such as
“> « « t e e discriminatory and
which management should address. °r SOme va^ serious questions
complaintTor thefifeg^f h i ^ ^ a L f ̂ mCUmd °r wiI1 bcur regard to this
Phonal use in his ^ d d h iS ^ y ̂ s f ' t i r d ™ g * * 0™ *1 for ^
so utilized up to this p o in fT to w h ^ ^ ^ “ ^ h*
Attachments
Wimess List
Corrected Copy - this page
ie Fiorillo
?jT
A - 3 3
e x h ib it b
DECISION OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION!
d e p a r t m e n t a l o f f ic e o f c i^ r i g h ^
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
A- 3 4
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Office of trie Secretary
of Transportation
J
Departmental Office of
Civil Rights Camenage Regional Office
Jonn A. Volpe National
Transponanon Systems Center
55 Broaoway
Kenoall Square
Camonoge. ma 02143-1093
CERTIFIED MAIL JffB 2 6 1995
RETURN RECEIPT REQlirsjpn
Complaint No.: 1-96-060
Ms. Ann Fiorilio
c/o Voorhees & Associates
Attn: Linda J. Sammartano
80 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Dear Ms. Fiorilio:
This refers to your discrimination complaint dated Sentemhpr r looc , nu
you S your compla,m' and related documeMs lndica,es ,hat
1 L L m " 5k b'eCted 3 con,lnuin9 Pattern of disonmination because of your age
(over 40) when your supervisor did net afford you the same formal training on the-
)Ob framing, mentoring or support as he did to younger employees under his
supervision manifested by your supervisors behavior with regard to your
assignment (dunng the penod September through December 1994) to represent
the agency at an MSPB heanng. represent
\A/ere you discriminated against because of your age (over 40) your sex (female}
su J Z T 'ated a9f inSt When' in Ja"“ary 1995. management showed your J supervisor a copy of a memorandum, Subj.: Lessons Learned, dated January 9
1995, you sent to the Deputy Chief. Personnel. ^ a'
3. Were you discriminated against because of your age (over 40) your sex
and/or retaliated against when your supervisor improperly and seleoti“ lv J
investigated your -Lessons Learned' memorandum to ga'tne^ewdencl to file
A - 3 5
r9 9 5 ^ se d tn S a t a ' hen 3 0 EE° PPmp,ai"‘ a9a™ V°a on March
4. Were y°u discriminated against because of your age (over 40) your sex rfemai^
and/or related against when you received a performance Z ^ S Z S S T >
wh,ch you do not believe is an accurate reflection of your performanoa a^d
accompltshments for the rating period ending March 31 1 9 9 5 S
received by you on August 16 1995. ' 95> sa,d rat,n3 was
Allegation numbered four is accepted for investigation.ŜS=S*SS3!SŜ
rea“ ated below'6" d'SmiSS a'le9a,ions 1 ' 3 °f ̂ for the
Allegation 1 -
^ ^ ^ t ^ s ^ S e ^ ; r a,,ar ertto“ ^ ^ r mann"dû â ^ ^ «
d,spare,e tmafmen, n o ^ an ^EO cS
hampny but ins,ead'
comp,a,n, .ha, -NoWhstandmg L ^ a r t th a n ld ™ iS T J S £ ’mplirtor
the level of both age discrimination and reprisal against me in that hie mmni • ♦ ■
a clear ind.cat.on of his cont.nued hostility and dJ5 ^ " ^ 1̂ ^ ,p'■,n, *
a9'ea with Complainant that the an act of retaliation against
orde to SUpe,v,sor would ma*a a" otherwise untimely act timely In
rented b 3 C O n tln u ln 9 violal'on. Complainant must show a series o f'
, t ^ o. .' °"e or m°re ofwhich ,alls wi,h'h the limitations penod Valentino „
1 S ^ la' S e ^ S S ‘6 7 4 F'2d 5 6 <D c - Cir. 1982) Further s^ S
the hn!e3 fS.h3 "Pt aWare ‘hatthe previous acts coald have been discriminatory at
(1992) flhe,roccurrence- Wa'lace v Attorney General, 01922669. 3509/G1
^ T “ ant alle9es Ihat =he did not receive the same training, mentorinq or
support from her supervisor as did younger employees. Complainant does not
e a. a pattern of interrelated and discriminatory conduct, rather she outlines the
A - 3 6
duTng6;:'p CeTde T *" • » office
.he supervisor has spent w i n g e r ' e m p l C T ^ ™ ' 0 T, T
bulk of her narrative is devoted to her interactton wfth S T herself 1 7 , 6
MSPB appeal in the latter part of 1994 T ? perv,sor regarding the
^ 2 S S r ^ K £ T '■ “ - “ «
related to the acts which occurred prior to that date to estibfeh "* not,sufficientl>'
theme continuing to a date within the limitation* n ■ | abllsh an analogous
p
29C ERRaf6T4PllT ,ehT „ ? Pf cUn!fy Commission (EEOC) regulations at
% u x L T 'thapplicab™ *"*
br h* *° the “ - *
- & * s r ? 5 .
Allegations 2 and .?•
lB S EiqnL17al,f,mPl0 yTrnt 0pportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations at 29 C F R
1614.107 (a) permit Federal agencies to dismiss a complaint that fails m S S
claim cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 qr̂ f * state a
the Age Discrimination in Employment A« T o "
"LeSSOnS Le3med" memorandum was
memorandum^^alrSakeTe^SteSi^hTTl" ^ 0 5 6 h' 3 " " 9 ,he
S T S T rt'wS'tocumbent upon " " ^
A- 3 7
on my Lessons Learned’ memo " Her “Lesson* i oamaw-
implies that Complainant’s supervisor f a i l e d t h e T T StateS nor
she believed she needed to carrv out the 9 6 h.erthe Professional support
' r » ~ - her
s s r r s r s « * - y l m ^
If you are d issaved with this «na, agency decisicn. you have the following appeal rights
Iss iP -ss .
purpose.) C 5 3’ N Ce of APPea!fPetition, enclosed for this
r S aCti° a y° U may a <** «
the sole discretion of the Court 9 ° r deniai of the rec?uest is within
herUOffidal ttle afthePdefeLWant in ^ p p e a M n " ^ ^ °f dep3nment head a"d his or
following official as the defendant: V PP y°ur case' you ™ st name Ihe
The Honorable Federico Pena
Secretary of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
Failure to provide the name or official title of the
result in dismissal of your case. agency head or department head may
Please be advised that at the time you file any
copy of the appeal documents to the following appeal or civil action, you must furnish
official: a
Chief, Compliance Operations Division, S- 3 4
Departmental Office of Civil Rights
Room 9201
400 7th Street. S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20590
A - 3 8
Director, Cambridge Regional Office S-341
Departmental Office of Civil Rights
55 Broadway - Kendall Square
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
Additionally, please provide a copy for processing purposes to
Doris A. Wojnarowski, Chief
General Law Division
Office of the Chief Counsel, G-LGL
2100 2nd Street, S. W., Room 3410
Washington, D. C. 20593-0001
An enclosed letter advises you of all
of your complaint. nghts to which you are entitled during the
Sincerely,
Jerome Williams, Director
Departmental Office of Civil Rights
Cambridge Regional Office
Cambridge, MA S-341.2
Enclosures (3)
processing
A - 3 9
EXHIBIT C
LESSONS LEARNED MEMO
JANUARY 9, 1995
Mi
Q
) T
J
MEMO
From:
To:
Via:
JAN 9 IS95
Anne Fiorillo, Personnel Management Specialise
Norma Lozada, Deputy Chief, Personnel
12 ) A ^ Se ^ albuto' Team Supervisor C ) cting Civilian Personnel Officer
Subj : LESSONS LEARNED
BACKGROUND
of the circumstanc&s^ h at occurred^urino ™anner ,in relating some
*s removal for unacceptable performancff. U3rd AcademF appealed
appeal. This was a comolex^and'B'time8111̂ the agencF in a MSPB looked at it as a challenoe anS f u m i n g assignment. i
undCS J aad n° exPerience or training i ^ M S P B ^ 1^ f°r growt:h- unaerstanding of what was to be d o S how ft appeals I had no
- i r r e c e f v e ^ s u p ^ - ^ u ^ £
•MSPB appears ̂ SUpervisor was also tSe^ecSnfcaJ e x p e ? ™ ^
r r - " s a * - - 2 5 ? r ^ » ; ~ - J
̂K Or SUPPORT IN -^A PT vr — « VT* rc AR^NG rOR AND PRESENTING CASE
n L d“ea| f m o M M b l e ' g e T ?£ th iS a s s i 3 ™ e n t.
« > ; • ~ e SS ^ U answe^various" — ked on the case, to s^are i questions I had as I
rrcedures, to help me und“-s~and f 5 knowledge of correct
atlure to prosecute, appI’J ^ n c t / o n s ^ a t c '"’ 3 "«lon ™took pn i T̂-̂ q„■_' cue. As a result thisassignment took
spent well over one
researching case law.
an inordinate amount~ amount of my per:
hunored hours reading,my Personal time.
writing and
A — ■ — — 111 e or no s'^m- — - _
motions, resoor.ded *'-3 8d Pre-^earing submisions made*
researched o v e r 200 ’case's and Emissions.' a„d
r.ecessarv to prepare for :te ® it was a!so
^ « * « : p « P . r . S----- wO th° — _ ______- wi^n them - ~,j
r » ' J " : a l 0,?:i;s:ed then -or the hea?i-l"‘rn E y “~°e er-- retrese.n- -w0 In orderW“ ~ G ̂e . . w V I ,Ua-J — r-v 1-- -o learn
t : p r r e a r e
A - 4 1
present this^case5 i n ^ h 6521 terminology. Mvagency. It w ” the best possibl^’ wa y °b:Jective was to
this was made e l J l l l T * ? ? * o r me to learn L XT COuld for the
changing judicial r e p u l ^ e m e ^ 10111* by the c o n s ta n t* ! ! * along andrequirements and tight deadline. pressu^ s of
In addition to d *
under which he was challenging the performarfging harTO^ul
of regulatory Dror^ ' 1 had to do a g r e f ? ^ ? 6 standards
5 - p S s ; « anhdi s s s g. i « , . * » s - 2
and ̂stress ̂during" the the lack ofK«=r*s~S; “ "r
to me. Questions x ^ thara uas »'«•>“ n o « L asai=«nce and
best to answer til d "ere nav« resolved ltd Tmtda av«ilabl.
cursory at best h?t mys5lf- Any support that f had to do
specific question to "f* ^ P ^ l / f o r examole r?Caivad » u
should know the answer0 k °ld suPervlsor In rl i hen 1 bad a
procedures to reart^ because he had given r^f !ponse that I
b°o k . In r J a l i t J di d°ide r ^ C° V e r ' andg th e a n s w l r ^ ^ ° n MS?B the book. There alp read the bo°* and the ^ was the
regarding the lack J? nurTle-°us other examples f Was not in
needed and did not rPoU??°rt‘ My ret?uest for -he . 1 COuld cite
grven sole responsibility* ^ m°re than Justified*1 s?°rt that 1
Uhe Merit Systems the Coast ^ard* befSj
' ! ! 0KAL ™ SPENT - — W ^O U T „ SAT10K
w“* ̂ rnsndous amourv4" —
i : ^ rP^ nti £ ^ a aa- rS° « t a ; ^ e ^ a ^ ired ^ P - P a t i n q
compensated 'for a , C? l e M Pbe to-Plated on
overwhelming amoun^ ° f this time PK ! ~ ^ 0rk to get
wxth daily regard’ n~ ’-l 8nd nu‘a-°us issues i S °f the
compensatory time beca-e - u ^ 56/ the PaPa- work r ^ ° J®31 approximately is k~ e'"e k"*e least . rK regarding
p a - 1 in « n d y & * £ « ““ • o ? - ; ~ “ rai *o m e 9P°* wion of thp = a °“ *-ne I filed -or- .. ° hours.
amount K 55̂ ̂ ^
receive conpenfa tlr-v 1 m V A _Ci . rh-s assistant 9 *j ^ f f ^ h l eO ». 0 27 or,n ̂ nvaoo * - w — -•”'.0 •’>r>• • — — — _ °a D0C t6d ^—‘P - o y e e s w o rk ’ r - o-, .____ “ c ---=> _ S ' l c n i t - e d T . ~ °
received compensator! ‘tire. “ * « ir- similar situates havl
A - 4 2
Suggested Recommendations
x . e
I am making the recommendations cited hpinu k
was treated unfairly both in the lack n?1 * because I believe i
hS urs1" ! d4 S, f P? rOV al ° £ th e com pensato ry^ Z Z T fo r f ? CelVed a " d
^ S K v f s p ^ y ‘3 £ S 1 " £ S g g J
t h i r ir"9h prt°c»ess ^ - / bp; net1^ ntaitr ngmo/ 0eun?L °iu c tiv e iy * « T 3 St h e . i h ad t o sp en d in o r e n a r in a ^5? S unne c e s s a r y h o u r s
P e r s o n s a s s i g n e d t o s i m i l a r p r o j e c t ' s I s e c o n d t h ^ f o j S S ^ *
.“ ' E f f e c t i S r A S v S L c y 6 ePtrdVSP3ed„ e S n g s 't0 CaSS * ^ S n n z n * ,
i n ^ v e ' l o P? n | 1^ d e p t « e « L g e t h ; d| a j r i l a b l e tD 3 S S iS t « » P e r s o n
s r n . - i to n t i ? t ! :St o hm a i n t S e t w r S a r m o r - u n f c I t PrOVidinff 8 s u P P ° " i v e
' r v ' ! f f ’S needs- ™is =h°uld“''“£ ; S i ° a L ant'be resP°nsive
« P P » p ; Z « ; . t r a i n “ 9 and ra s o u rc a depearsSo n T a 9vaVlaPb? sb l Ssm
a s s u r e t h a t t h e em p loyee i s co m p en sa ted f a i r l y and
C o n c lu s io n s t a b l y .
Th=
me
Co
t h
ee:
Be.
su ;
so :
s i :
Svs
_p u r p o s e o f w r i t i n g t h i s nemo <s ~o •
- J f r? r e -Df f i n g and p r e s e n t i n g " th‘ s ta s 'e " >,Wh,a t h a P P e n e d t o
"a “ G u a r d s p o s i t i o n was p - e o a - e ^ p - o 1 b e l i e v e t h a t t h e
- e x t r a e f f o r t on mv p a r - ' ‘ f h " Pr e s e n t e d v e r y w e l l b v
. s p e c t e v e t h a t a r u l i n g i h o u ' - V o - w r e a s o n f c ° m mv
- l e m a r e . The r e a l i s s u e s h = - = P s - i ^ made «9 « i n s t Mr
• ? b - . e d v e i l , a n d t h a t a C o a s - G ‘ ' 1 ” a s n o t t r e a t e d a n d
! alT e-d°Pts) was nisusad % o - ''Jss-“ OUfCe »
= f s . . c n s w o u ld make i t e a s i e r f f r * l e £ r n ed h o p e f u l l y my
- - e . a s s i g n m e n t t o p r e o a r = =>-- -~_V-_ n e x t p e r s o n g e t t i n g a
-e r . s P r o t e c t i o n B o a r d . ' ~ a c a s e b e f o r e t h e M e r i t
A - 4 3
EXHIBIT D
EEO COMPLAINT BY VINCENT MARTIN
FEBRUARY 26, 1995
A - 4 4
( 5
T o ■ M i < i a , t c o < T 4 f ^
; £ £ 0 . ( w ^ J c t ._. . ? J . X 6 ; J ~
^ „ d~t S ^ u * , , y TTTXT,
" /b^^lsvru^X' mLû J L ^ , ^ r - J o / . / p
- < ^J< , W Z > « . . d - w
cT t ^ ' l f xT T °® A ' w ^ /
X > M + < * u lL j U ^ r % , .
" ^*AJ. Je^ ^ . T ^ IL L iL ^ L , taH J& lZ L ^ .
^ Z 6 ^ ^ • 'f '^ n T iA s - .
" • ^ CU' M ^ u X " * d lA A U ^ X A& ru-L V w c ' CjrxsCJLVLC.
" •<̂ ~ ' du>-d- Td-L $S-(JL(T*-4A_e_ <̂ _J_ Ûr(Lisv̂ . J
/& X c ttX & T & -u c * ^ J ~ ( ~ ^ j
.. /yu^s-c?L ^ b S ^-* ~
^ . X ^ J M r J L n A A jn T T T & d . /U a X A a J L C tT v h is n j i i ^ .
JuruA. AJ^uu^t sUrLcd̂ J :MJ- JjLA, sd L d J VsK*? 3
i ’̂ ji ^ t ) 'MtAJL aja<JX oJXt T k̂ I - I u^
[ Z i f u J r f i C L u x . a ^ T , d & J L - & .
M ^ J A a J _ j £ u T u J ^ a L O a L v A X
. ^4 /WUS-(. QaOjC ^ /7ux_ a l y ^ A u f y z£ . ^ s u
% Ua^ L j t U a M & J J . s ^ c ttv ^ u L ,
- i / W s< dU -#-. j j , a L l s U H r d a J f a - ^ u J L ^ ja ^ .
T T l ~£on*~l_ Oa X [ aaa*XLla^
T iM ci^ J A a , J T&l % , .
dJM A d
j m M C J 7 tjj) '̂ C ^ J L
A - 4 5
oJ ju l J . ĉ zS ^
.: i J Z s i A A J M L ^ j a Aa x Jc '{q j h t / U u r '
.: >caA M ^ qIJ a - ^ y y f ^ u ^ t c . U c / ( j
> J t/ aa v Z F ^ i - ^ A A a A / a J jl ~ A ajluc.-6^*f
.. y i^ C n x ^ f r J lL sh < -c ^ u jiX h y d U u w u is ^
.. J ^ J w u J j . . ( fy tJ u u . s n A c . d o t a J L c1< £
.. A A SIH H JU . - b u J L J ^ i ,
.. /L b 'C jvK £_ A < dd A ^-dL d L ^C su ^c ; V u jju c ^ s& Ld
■■ ^Aa H X A -' ^yh^_
. a ^ & A . T lla , ^ - u r tjJ L ttr J U ^ < ^^O C JL .
^ U r^^ lU ^J J y ^ ^ u c A . ^ J u j? jh -U s ^
'.^ fc y i^ L { l u 4 _ ( j j su szl^ - j t iZ z k y * y /o A , d jJ ftu ^ U Z
vJLaA L ̂ ~̂~
^ h u ^ v L 3 U
^ J J j J L f ^ n s c ^ l
■ r̂fcCs+U■ d l
yfrA A A A rU s< d l
.. f)$ z L c
y tla ^ U y U s tA L
/U s lw w * J \ ~h
u I/ftd L . (J 'J lu ^y y rvJ U e r \juloJU U * sU -tZtA u^.
. CUA sy**M. Muu duA^A^M. Mj-dLiMjMA oJUlJj cuw-ô
>llu a t̂uz/AuA^ 'tcjtiu M'̂ jb yU u$ *■-
& ± L _ J * £ J L j 6 ;
, C & w jA y lJU A ~ ~ & o t
'4 j o u A A L M -
5 P & Q jdfazAU -r oaaA C fnyj> .
/CU~tL4^
a lo > u j£ ji
' auujpam-^ cl A ^n^~ U A uy^A w sU au
A & t ' J!a * A <^r ~M/ttc . J _____ ________________ __________ ^
^ t u £ £ &
a r ^ y t
O M JtA ju
L. cl
- {^LA*- & Q ^ y ^ C A ^ ly . sJ_'<jUlr*c+s_ _
jU L . . X h - fc /H .e J ^ J U j
) ery^ 'T h c n ^ L u j f
• 2 - 3 f / 9 <f ^ v / -+ VV-4, 3 * JyU U ^T M sj { fa u x ; 3 jic + u
/3 U s » £ u { ^ A . -6 w . Cl A X /ul̂ M s *.AXA^C<1l {_
/h fa . { fa y ^ y ^ fr id l /yu -t A CJrrKJt s w jfc fadb^
.c3 c>UAâ ^ $*!& cn̂ . ^ c_
./fc&Jly /y>X ZC y\jrfa^ # sTTUsiClcr J& yiLsmju^
£ > ^ n . J yvu llo^ j^ tjo
. —i-£yYuyL*o* (L**-@ JvlC -Ctf7c£<»*_̂ y y i& h d
-J ^n^AAo-l^A. J ^ L c t Jyŷ & u. LdyC&«£ a / _ 2 £ ^
/ y x js tu a ■ J - i ;ln > A x J U . / 7 ^ i c e ^ U u y - -
{/sU sH -t. / -ûL̂Ctr~fc> ^ o - t 4 t _
<1, i ' l l S ' . jJ u t SrWsUAJ sju<40 3-^yy^y
ASVL-, CyJjLsvu^Q ̂ ju i^ eJU M jS to Cl̂ uH /UuLy
R t 3 'J'Ilu . 0 '7/ku . 3 3 l**s
{ zu k . s » i£ j^ X - M a4^A m x 3 u H < ^ <u l
^ - / Juu<x ‘̂ UĴ faJ/\ ®^3fa*j3L
s^ iJ L A V u r~ C & X L dU ^ jJ !ru yL 4 > ^ 7 ; / 7 9 R ? . ^
fa fa { l/L&U-C /3 fa j_ J L ^>vv sv w y j jlU rlu jL A ^yi y '' / CJ CJ< y '
/y^M-MAA' / { iu . ’f u ru l/3 e & yM iy^ujr fautR^uLL ><jlh{C {l,
yU U ^CU >CM Ay(U U ^ } .'Y V U A A J^M iyC U L ^j^^ /{m a A J u 3 U x _
/S fa d jfa s fr jA o t^ . jJ J m fa u L /y ^ { c /fa jU . Cl O jfxA JuJb^U L s
A- 4 7
I •
i ;
jj ^ " < 9
j
i :
ij
- 3 ^ — < «
- f ^ u n U M - ' - £ * u * a k a i J y & j . ji, _ £ U c ^
s ^ v - & fr~yi~ d ^ A * y U u ju J J y u r tC L s r x £ .
A ^kJ ? S lU ^ C ’'U M . d ^yiM , C& KAU ASh^
!»
J n farC ^ O A h a! J & £ a ^
■ y u .
4 j f J tM .
^ d d jz ^ y y u f y U T Z L ^ &
$^lyJA s/s< d< r j y ^ y d A /^ d ^ c d -y -^
d y y ^ A X y y td y y 'C d ^ ^ j f 'kJ } d /y is^
* U jl ^ ^ s 6 < J Iu l <s <s
y ltd a y n
"d & d tZ i^ J 2 k ____ ^
/I C ^ d /ltd s tt-£ * 4 t/ l^ tyC d & u
^ J fl& L d y ^ lu ^ y y jts C A a
y M A _
y< L
A ^ d ^ o lkJTj ? J ^ d u ~ u y (c £
& T\ A /M l, V
c J y y y y d t u ,. “
'd & iu < ^ y fd U * ~ c fc
J Z x J -+ jc d .
6 i M r u ttu y ^
s U /V - i o o ^ y x r r t^ G } J b z s i
^ ^ M d $ M s w J r y y s / ^ u a J L
. J j ,
^ u a t l & J $ y rh jn J . f ^ f j j f
y fr w y d k v u y y ^ s y
A - 4 8
< D
J ^ r /C tu L
& U .____
. i t // . f e d .&j l . . s / z / z r )
V £ J u * - l^ l^ & & J £ ^
s y iA s ^ /W sfi^ rJ U . . f U *
' S i& * * u J L t , y d J h tA J U l.
* d & ~X hu< i ./ty u Z ^ tlu y Z e r n A ^ u jfe g /
:
V _ / y U r fr ^ C ^ £ yO < SU Z!Zey> ^
- .. U a W ^ ^ ^ r o J r ^ J i
'7 k '- - / ^ r y A ;
y(si*.
v / y lo b _ a S 7 ^ - fa c to r s
J ^ r A b k jL & v U L s < yjC 2< L su£jL
/U asvc^ , / M J~k l
/ 7 f o . Y < ^ u J X y jX ^ Z Z L C TrLZjSyyu^At o .
'Y vU lX u ^ . c
&>7\jd ^ U n s J ^ J
y ( y L ^ < ^ A J Z d u . 0Lsv̂ _
f ^ S : 0 ^ y ^ o iX Z Z X X o
z y c A ^ i y f^ d L L / fo ,.
J * - < ^ -K d L u ^ s X L X
A - 4 9
7 % ■Til
5S?// aî z V 3 P B d c r z l d
l / ? ? ; ) 3 .
< 7 - J j d ^ f T 'i ^
U L o ^ u ^ .
• 7 /ylun/ld.ahs /) v t^ ~
y U ^ J . J L u U l, f i y ^ i
te> y y ^ - u ^ t y k ) J u jL M jL J fW r u .
C k jlo c ^ M ; a ^ Z H U L + - ^/J/Ĵ t̂r̂ ^~ -Jhjn.
d
J U x . /71a *-*JU .
r J b i J t e r n ^ ; M l £ ^ 2 y £ ^ L
t̂ ^ X d d u d z id ^ s^ sJ U sn ^ stA . kJ ^
j - J dJL 4sC cC < ^r / h 'J ie n A A ^
j X t /
/Z t % t . - / - ^u ru d ^Z a /? /m c d v ts G
? , / f ^ r .
A - 5 0
EXHIBIT E
EEO COMPLAINT BY VINCENT MARTIN
JULY 10, 1995
A - 5 1
•*o« «c Vltl!
i a » . | ^ « f i r i o i < | CCMALAIW T O* Cl I C * i m i * a TlON
•" rnc ticjJA-. CCvianmcnt
--------- r* Art Slltf~r~e
, I C A U U ° * " AC« . C O L O * . M U C .O N H * . N A n o N A c o r i c i m . A C * c T h a ^ , ^_________________________________ '*>«!» Tret “ HAN0,CA*
-* r .» »ow* iCO**/UkMuk«r u #ott *amU --------------------” | _____________________
\ / / a jr. -ca/ t a / L ^ - U : ^ L L uw-— -0'
»u«
□ *tuaio«.if lo.rrATiroonmuCio*.
□ KATiOwau C.ICIM, t* 10. (TATI YQu*
hatiowau Omani
s ' m .i f to.rrAt* you* kx vffi LF.
□ API. 1* »Q. HAT! YOU* AO
□ KAMOtCAS. IP tO. STATI PwYtiCAt 0*
MUrTAL ,
»;i ii^.ivi rou w«ai oucaixiwaho  Aimr it^tAnA A./UAI.W , __ *
a~ uca* t:i I I U ,» 9. YOU. - aci.couo*. Mueiox. nx. - atioka,. n *.«■ „ V S . J L ? ° M
• ' • f is > 11 «/ tm tf M n n i f c jw jm h i m j - ■__■ , ______ * Z l 7 v ,~ f m ^ r n v .w m m
_ _ cbrCXJsyKU C^~J
, 'T 'K f ^ c r w 'jfy /r
£14 A
__ fls u u f
/
& j\ 41'KlA, J -
j~ u n
-A ( ,h < ^ ^y jk j/h i -4-UA.u u U v/LacA ^^T STHJsnU
6/
A - 52
tULa
^ W u L z
C v u J b P f t l H . M ~ Z ' ^ ^ ‘“ A / *
/ ^ < f c ' fU t t 'u U s L V k ^ - z O fn .
{ ■ A ^ o c d t
^ L/ t /i^ ULLj^
jJ J c t lv / h u o a t
<2- C
' ' O lS O JU tO NT COUAVAJHT WTTH AM « d S T
tU ^tO Y W tH T OPrQftTUMTr COU KULO*
U rn a MO
1 " rKAT CO«M CTIVl ACTION M l TOO U1X2NQT
fy -fi^ L c lu r^ c i/ jT u . 'P *ct^u£lc '*■
{yU dc^i ^^U AALAai ^/ / w r . 4
~ 4 / / (0 ybt-uJua. Cs^k4>-
A. HAMA O f COOHMLON
!!3 ^ ^ a £ l^ 'fy y u r is iJ L
- J .
Jf4 io i /rH jd h c f& £ xtXc
. ??C/ . 5'<xruJ?4 '4 US' yi£,‘
.......... -jru,
0-r" CL SI
,a .°* * coNi ĵwfr n*. Or. n j
i ^ u
.^U U atu^la .OTUAVVLcr'
\&uXa -^-uaL .
C T O ) .
U
J
0̂ flY*A**£*ACA*yjs,t7 bhuLi /** LAaAluJ j>
iy *<GH jrOON̂ COM̂UHANTH KAMA KMJ*M
V sC srU jU tt
A - 53
EXHIBIT F
VINCENT MARTIN MEMO RE PLAINTIFF’S LESSONS
FEBRUARY 7, 1995
LEARNED MEMO
A- 5 4
U.S.O*portm*rrt
of Transportation
United S ta te s
Coast Guard itoemuranfmm
Subj: ANNE FI0R1LL0 MEMO OF 9 JANUARY 1995
i: Vincent Martin, A Tea
7 FEB 1995
From: Vincent Martinf'XTeam Supervisor
To: Catherine Harris, Civilian Personnel Officer
BACKGROUND;
Mrs. Harris the acting CPO, asked me to read a memo dated 9
anuary 1995 from Anne Fiorillo to Norma Lozada and asked about
w L « S C£ ° 2 “ thls Mr«. Harris told me N o « a Lozada
d S tD r®fpond in writing to the issues contained in this memo. My reaction was that I wrote down a list of employees in
ersonnel who could better serve that purpose. I felt it was
inappropriate for me to hold onto the memo so I didn't want S
copy (at that time). I told Mrs. Harris I thought it was L s t
appropriate if she conducted an investigation into these
allegations. She, again, reiterated that Norma Lozada wanted me
to respond I thought it was inappropriate for me to conduct an
investigation of myself. j was told not to disculs S h l T w i S S y
of the employees in Personnel. I then said the statements Y
promulgated in this memo are untrue and I would respond to thpm
t0,Sy of5ice to thoughis and r e v S wmaterial I could gather from the Bellmare case. I also called
andeI ? t ^ ° £ l€V K h0 C°Uld provide statements which would clarify and attest to the veracity of my statements. Y
EXPERIENCE AND TRAINTNC-
Ms. Fiorillo has been a GS-12 for many years in the Personnel
community. I do know that she was a GS-12 Training Specialist
when I first met her in OPM's Regional Training Division She
was an instructor and did a lot of training in the K 0 arena when
L t ^ s i g n e d (Riffed) to that division on Feb. 19 1983? r T
s L c i a U ® 9e' she has been an Employee Relations and Training
fiKCe Jan' 15' 1989. She has worked in the Employee Relations, Labor Relations, and Training Section since she beoan
her employment with the Coast Guard. 9 n «
Examples of specific formalized training Ms. Fiorillo received *
Dealing with Problem Employees - July 1985
Labor Relations courses - Feb 1984 and April 1985
ENCLOSURE 2
A - 5 5
Performance Based Actions - Mar 26-28 1991 (Exhihii- n
Employee and Labor Relations training seminar X ) . .
° ™ , Region,! Employee/Labor Relatione Office, P h U a L l p h l a ° r?f Y
It is a yearly seminar which considers new developments and
Employee Relations, many of which relate to/or concern
(Exhibit^) ThS Sem±nar was cond“cted from Oct. 26-28, 1992.
* “ ”S * f1?^1110 retum e d to the Willow Valley Family Resort
seminar?*(Exhibit1^)3 £“ ^ L a b o ^ f l S n s
f r a i n i n r b / ^ ^ ^ r 0, ^ & ™ e = ' f & . ,
Club on Governors Island. Ms. Kathleen La Plant, a former
coworker, and I were co-participants with Ms. Fiorillo in this
training. Ms. La Plant was called to refresh my memory in
several aspects of this training. She believes the trainer,
2 3 & ° ^ s ands ?
S S S g l S S ? M S * o v ^ T c o u ^ Of the
Ms. Fiorillo was provided with a photo copy of "Representing
Coast Guard Before MSPB" in July of 1994 as Tanva Packer nn? th?
her statement at the bottom of page 2. (Exhibit^ ) T h S _ ”ft' f fn
was published by Terry Herman C o n n i n g ?987? I ins?ru«Id Ss
Packer to make several copies of the course material Ind place
them in white-3 ring binders. Ms. Packer completed the
assignment and I provided a binder to Ms. Fiorillo with
instructions that she should review the material and discuss anv
questions she had with me. Furthermore, I inquired several timL
concerning her review of this material. ^Ms. Fiorillo never
approached me concerning questions, comments or any w r J S e n m t p ,
concerning the representation material. Y Wrltten notes
FACTS:
Fiori?T^'tn posses®ion of the actual case file referred to in Ms
L ll r f • _1 had several documents reJatld
c e ° „raSB : n SOm£ Df theSB 6VentS are based.upon my ecoj.lection. Mr. Bellmare was removed for unacceptable
perfctmcnce on July 2 9 . 1 9 9 4 . I believe the O r d e r from Judge Armstrong was dated August 2 2 , 1 9 9 4 . wjuage
In April/May 1993, Ms. Fiorillo was my technical assictant
!orkS?n B a X a ^ c f bef° - ^ P B , New
who handled^the^performance^based^ctio^concerning^Msf^George?*26 Fpdprai pi 6 ° several pre-hearing conference meetings at •
weSFnod?r tao t S i ay an ^ dt r h e ? ? V° 1Ved ln ^ “ “
A - 5 6
VwCaK1Sn t0 th® Pacific Northwest. Furthermore, I asked hPr -t * she had any experience in these matters. She said she h*.5 k ±f
technical representative for Tina Porcello, who handled m s p b 66" 3
cases at the Brooklyn v.A. This statement made me fee? ^ e r
concerning my decision to give this*case to Ms. Fiorillo
follows*^110 W3S provided with additional research material as
The Air Force Law Review - The Master Labor Lawyer's Edition, Volume 35, 1991 ^ r s
A Guide to Merit Systems Protection Board Law and
Practice - Peter Broida, 1993 edition
Fi0^i110 was 9±VBn my copy of the Air Force Law Review riaht
after she was assigned the Bellmare case. Approximately six
weeks later I questioned her concerning specific sections that- t
had noted with paper clips to make It L s y for he? ?o read
review. She responded that she had not read the mater???
Several, days later, I provided her with my copy of "Representino
£ £ Before the U.S. Merit Systems Protiition B o a rd - l! , 9
OPM t?bMSPB Th?S.?°°k contalns a comprehensive approach by2?” ? I 1 specifically indicated to Ms. *Fiorillo the chapters to review. There is specific infnrm=f<n
on sanctions, content of agency responses, and issues such as ”
discrimination. Chapter V was specifically mentioned because it
contained information on motions for postponement of the heai-ir.rr
location of the hearing, service r e q u i r e m e n t s ? 9 '
sanctions, disqualification of the presiding official
etc; all issues that were discussed with Ms. Fiorillo'or which1?'
gave specific guidance and review. The OPM publcation even has a glossary of terms and sample motions. has
I also relieved Ms. Fiorillo of her assignment to complete the
PIP issued to Alyce Kozlin in order to devote even m p r e t i m e D
Fior??T‘imare app®f1 - According to LTJG Brewer's statement Ms iorillo was working on this PIP since July 6, 1994. From'
approximately October 20 to November 4 , 1994 I aot ud to
cn the case and finished the PIP myself. - (Exhibit 5)
k 3S provided with several MSPB cases as Tanya Packer has noted in her statement. (Exhibit 4) The several c a s L tha5 ?
wrote down were (this is not an all inclusive t i l l ) ]
Lovshin v Dept of Navy ‘
Shuman v Dept of Treasury
Ortiz v Dept of Justice
Cross v Dept of Air Force
Eibel v Dept of Navy
Zang v DIS ‘
Fairall v VA
Ortiz v Marine Corps
Ms. Fiorillo did not engage
concerning the appellant's in discovery. She was very confused
discovery requests. For several days.
A- 5 7
“ v c ^ e I rinUS a “ ss?n I f S S S L S V t 2 ^ 2 ^r s s i r r ! to the a-aai Ld 1 -̂ ssrst-s*
Let me try to present the documents and/or notes I nossess <r>
logical manner which provides evidence which is clear.
The photocopy of the certified mail receipts dated September 21
have writing on the side "Initial Response Bellmare" and "I r
Bellmare . This is my hand writing and, more specifically I
brought these responses to the post office myself. (Exhibit 6)
L re^if ? ed 3he a9en°y response several times. The check marks in the Table of Contents were made by me and I went over the
response and exhibits very carefully. (Exhibit 7)
on September 29, 1994, CAPT Colburn (deciding official) and Steve
Allen (proposing official) came to Governors isi t
- is? rz&sstfxd ̂ hzLifJkZthough we went to Burger King or the cafeteria
great length the specifics of the case. We d i s c u ! t ^ T d at
attack the merits defenses, evidence required, required” ° documents, and a long "to do" list fnr
Colburn. (Exhibit 8) b°th Steve Allen and CAPT
5 ŝrs*^^?s?LfiSt,2i)F1s11s0*i5 tion in the Barbara
~ P - performance°based Z Z Z t f g S ?d̂ aappellant s pre-hearing submissions. Please note the chanoerf
& I Sc ^ o “ TheSe d° C“ den*°ostrateddmore
t h ese^ssues. ^ c l o S '
Fior-ft?«±110 d^d n0t enga9e the appellant in discovery Ms Fiorillo was given verv r]p»r __ , . _ t:-Lj •
concerning her response to discovery.- T o ' s y n ^ h e l ^ e ^ n u m e r o u s
A - 5 8
and repeated answers on this subject - "most of Mr. Bellmare'R
interrogatories did not require answers". His questions were
S S L S ^ S T °r materlal t0 hiS appeal"* (See n°tes attached to
My initials also appear in Exhibit 13. I clearly reviewed this
document and spent a good deal of time going over discovery with Ms. Fiorillo. *
Exhibits 14 through 18 clearly demonstrate the careful review o f
issues and language review I performed in this case. (Please
E?hiblt 17>• Please review notes attached ?o Exhibit 16 which also excised motion requesting a closed hearing.
CONCLUSION:
I gave careful and measured responses to these issues before thev
were put into writing. I clearly reviewed the work products I
even went to the Post Office for Ms. Fiorillo. I waS pert of the
teiecons with the appellant when we discussed settlement within
the 35 day period required by the judge. I was a party in all
conference calls except one. I was sick for one call and I
fPefi5±Cflly !Jientioned to M r * Kenney when I called for sick leave that I strongly urged him or someone to attend the conference
cail with Ms. Fiorillo and to take notes concerning the call
Ms. Packer s statement substantiates my recollection. (Exhibit 4)
K.C. Moran of the Personnel Office at the Academy faxed witness
questions to me on November 30, 1994 which demonstrates tha? I
spoke many times with Ms. Moran, Ms. Fiorillo and Mary Hafev
concerning strategy, (Exhibit 19) and questions to b e posed to
d S r i n ^ t h ^ h o 1 WaS °n the phone a 9°od deal of time before and during the hearing concerning witnesses and strategy.
~ "af a*?° more heavily involved in questions for CAPT Colburn
Steve Allen, and the appellant because Ms. Fiorillo had the
questions ready prior to November 29. Ms. Fiorillo did not have
the questions ready for review in Exhibit 19 beforehand. I had
29 ?994. ^ 311 W±tneSS guestions times before J e l e r
?;5e Pr i m a r y fssue/ n this case was the unacceptable performance aJPellant in one CJE during the PIP. This was not a
vls a vls other^appeals?6 ^ entire scope °£ thls « «
L f S S«tHbJj'±eV- M S ’ Fiorill° researched over 200 cases. I would need to define research". There is no paper trail of 200 cases
photocopied. We discussed no more than ten to fifteen cases and
those 1 Provided or had Ms. Packer provide. (Exhibit 4)d
Furthermore, I called Peter Babcock specifically to g i v e him a
eads up should Ms. Fiorillo want assistance. (Exhibit 23) it
is clear that Legal did not provide lexus or make these 200
copies of cases. In fact, Ms. Packer provided Ms. Fiorillo with
A - 59
~\
cases I researched. Furthermore in the ?of0r.
appeal I had to show Ms Fiorillo hnu +•»-> i u tags of this
Merit Systems Reporter?' X° how to look “P cases in the
I have passed the FLRA. MSPB and- v m r
ER/T section from approximat4ly December 1992 to t h e ^ r e ? +h° Some of these issues, alona with Z ? 7he Present.
should have developed meanfngfS S S S S f o r T ^ n g ? ^ ^ .
Fiorillo could have found it more hplnfni ^
?h°Wa? h?d ShS rSad the research books published b y ^ s ^ H e r ^ f n " 31 the Air Force, and OPM when first provided to her She
have seen the Glossary of Terms soecif<n ' Sh would
and examples of f o r m S and l a n k S " £ S ^ ? £ ^ ^ ~ '
threatening me with claims of disparate t r e a S e S 9 *
On the day she questioned me I had several other MSPB = 1
staff"of L n atnmany SF;50s and Personnel actions to signf and a
Review the Blan^ha^d^5®' i* W3S work±n9 on a Petition for
of personnel. I^elieve^Ms^ ' Fiorillc^had^not^ fU?Ctlonal ^ e a s material in the book a s o f J 1!1 hfd 0t read an* of the
don't believe asking ^ 1 ° ™ ^ a qUi?k £ljt' 1
research and then cSme back for dlscissSn ?, « w
given this situation or most s i t u a t i o n ^ ?h“ m « t e r ? mUCh
c ^ m p e n L w o ^ r l q i e s t r r ^ S r n f Flor£11° has submitted
actual work being performed).P s on a tilnely basis (prior to the
the1statements°provided t o ^ a SradaT6' “ ±S COntrarY
« i a t m e M - 1byhml vJs V ^ o S ^ * ln,the paSt °f "disParate
allegations L v e r a A i ^ ^ t h e ^ a ^ ^
a GS -i2 'when^ssigne^an^MSPBAppeal ? Ce^Ve< '̂ COmpensatory time as
f o r ^ e r s o ^ i n ’m i ° * a * apPaal
chief ofatheatLrcet“ n°a"? 5 S f g ^ “ “lKOn a P P M l ln 1991 ‘ «e was
c
Therefore, Kathy La Plant and Jodi Golinskv could ho +-k -i
employees who I allegedly favored over . r“ r i U o °nly
The facts are:
Ms: LaPlant handled almost the entire William Purcaro MSPB
A - 6 0
case and a workload much heavier than Ms. Fiorillo's ck
attended the pre-hearing conference with me and did most
all, of the submissions concerning this physical inatvrn*-. £ not
perform case. This case was settled June 1 9 ^ 3 and ^ <
on about the same time as the Barbara George'case3 2f ?!
also acted as agency representative in the^arry McCants case
when I was on vacation. The significant difforPTiroTk-f. ..
o f ^ p e c i a l i s t ^ * La P la n t aJ e : Ms* La p l » n t had o n ly t h r e ^ y e a r s o f s p e c i a l i s t e x p e r ie n c e and was prom oted to th e G S -il i 0„ . i j
f S - V a n d ' a S ! f f forS- f « • w°rkl„g o n ^ h e P u r c I r o appla/as
Management Specialist in the ER/T Section603”6 ° GS‘12 Personnel
Ms. Golinsky handled her first MSPB appeal in iat»» 1000 1
1993. MS. Golinsky began her career In S S o n S S l ^ jine ip ^
o f th e W atergate b r e a k -2 1 and i t S a s ?h^ day I ^
G overn ors I s la n d . I p r o c e s s e d in w ith Ms Golinsky S h T t L
a s s ig n e d a s a GS-7 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n S p e c i a l i s t 2 ! < ,
J e?fsi3"ed 1:0 the ER/T section apprIxlma«ly'AugSit 1992S V 65g s a aa ss
a S s l^ „ ycePrS r L S l11DLri6;ehe: hrSn? i;eUS”^ S^o°Se^ot S s0? i L S 6r l S 1submissions Included 75 stipulations and 33 e S J S f t s =S
Conclusion:
These two employees were not GS-12s when thev hart hoora ..
^ i S S ^ . ^ S S ^ ^ g S f ̂ - " “ e T S i suHp ° ^ S i o n
advocacy training. “^ e i S h e r Smpl^yee h a d ^ e S ^ S V i , ”SPB ,.
had‘3 SSfriT.SlSySSs°SttthIlSydl °f afs±sn”ent- "hither employee
submisslonspPNSr^eSr6Lpt^ L di;aSdPOoSSe1r“ hSeSfySetaSsltohfPr6'hearLflprofessional experience, let alone three y e a r s ^ f ER/T
^ ^ 1 = ^ s - r a . - -
J i l e S nS S ^ i , S J “ S “ 1ISr trOUbled V S i T memo”*'
s t a t e m e n t s . I n ^ d ^ h T ^ o n i ^ ^ S ^ m a n T
J
A- 6 1
EXHIBIT G
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
VINCENT MARTIN’S EEO COMPLAINT
OCTOBER 11, 1995
A - 62
SETTLEM ENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Mr. Vincent Mertin filed o formal Complaint of
discrimination alleging gender discrimination on July 10 loos
(Commond oaso number ______ ), against the Maintenance ond
Logistics Command, Atlantic;
WHEREAS, the Maintenance and logistics Commond, Atlontio
responded by denying the allegations;
WHEREAS, both porti09 wish to amicably settle this case it- to agreed that:
1 . in consideration of the mutual actions and promises of the
Maintenance and Logistics Command, Atlantic (herein after
referred to as "Command") and Mr. Vincent Martin (hereinafter
referred to as "Complainant") contained horoin and subject to
paragraphs (2) s (3) of this Agreement, the Complainant, hereby
agrees to withdraw his formal equal employment opportunity
t PfGVious1y m «d nn ‘’"ly 10. 1995 alleging gender
fnd Pr<JmiseB "«>»■ *-o initiate any other appeal
faeti i <aweuit or ocher action concerning or related to the
Stands toCaJvU« ^ ? nCC9 °f tHe prCCOnt complaint. This Agreement "?ri0n °r lowault und« Titlo VII of the Civil
SSJfcifclt?™* 1964' as «"wnded. under the United States Constitution, or under any other federal or stale law or
IhG ComPlalnnnc ®lco waives any rights he may have for attorney fees incurred to this date. *
The Command agrees to as follows:
that the Complninnnt. was asked by Ms. Cothv iinrri.
the Acting Civilian Personnel Officer for MLCLAHT to read a
NormrEozaddateH January 9' 1 9 9 5 from Ms. Anne Tiorillo to Ms NormB Lozadn and to make o written report regarding it;
(ii) that the Complainant properly carried out t-M«
Officer that ? 2 ° U g h hC 3<,Vlt?ed the Acting Civilian Personnel Officer that It was not proper for him to investigate the matter;
(iii) that as directed, the Complainant reviewed the
memorandum and provided a report regarding it. He began the
assignment on January 23. 1995 ond completed it on February 7
1995 and was within the scope of his duties when he p e r m e d it;
<1^ ) *hBt Che Complainant nevor dialogued with anv
” p S ? c ) h l * C° -------- 2 /7 / 9 5 thespecillc Issues raised in the .lnnnnrv 9 1 9 9 9 ____ , , . . w.
Fiorlllo nor the Complainants February 7 1 9 9 5 response to that3*memorandum. response to that
1
A - 6 3
(v) thot since becoming an employee of the U. S.
Guard the Complainant's performance has been excellent in various positions he hoa hold, and
Coast
the
(vl) that the Command lias no reason to belleva tha
allegations put forth in the January 9 , 1995 memo, places no-
credence in them, and the memo has not injured or had any Impact
or effect, nogative or otherwise, on the Complainant's reputation
in the view of the Command. The Command consider the January 9 1995 memo a nullity. 1 *
a. The Command agrees to credit fchn Complninont with sixteen
hours of compensatory tims. If the Complainant is not amployad
by the Coast Guard at the time this complaint is settled then
Command will pay him S470.08 (the equlvalent of 16 hours’of nav
at the Complainant's norma) hourly rate) in lieu of the
compensatory time being credited to him.
b. The Command agrees that It will review the circumstances
which gave rrse to this complaint, including the January 9 1 0 0 5
memo, to determine! if there was any improper personal conduct to
include instances of false and malicious statements or attempts
at character assassination, involved.
o. The Command agrees to keep the terms of this
and all its terms confidential, except for (p), (Hh). Agreement
and (Lg).
aVT TJo J°mPlaina"t agrees to keep the fact of this Agreement nnd all its terms confidential, that he w i n not disclose its
existence nr contents to coworkera. subordinates, or others
except be needed in the course of his official duties or to
comnlfinimSBlf I " the courStt of ®n Official discrimination complaint or other grievance.
** h !!yiflgDlnS this ayreemer»t. the Command does not admit aiiilt
l t 0 ? l f ° r a n y ° f u n i t . . . 1 . « . . K t e i ™members and employees. Nothing within this agreement shall be *
the Command °ofn admifSfon °f or const! *,?«„ an admission bythe Command of any violation of Title V I I of the C i v i l R i n h t - c ?
other^fed°3 ’ U-°'T * ° ' C°8ct Guard reJLlat^ii,"ofanyother federal or state statute or regulation.'
t,* fullSandrrT,I’e?t C°nftllUtCS t,,e understand)ng andthe full and final settlement between Complainant and tli» Comma, .,1
is made under the authority 42 USL' 2000c-16. No other promisee
?he 2 f r r eT ^ n 1 1 b" hiM<1in° "nle” both partiesThe terms of this agreement shall not establish any pr»Cfxl!nt
nor be used as a baela to seek or to Justify slmilir te™. In'.
S « - ‘ K
2
A - 6 4
be used as e^idenea'in a hR,iba£e°t°£roceed 1 * thl® a5reemenc may
the parties allege a breach of thl^ ln WhlCh oAther
tAat iPfUrth“nCo^an2d9 S o e ^ n o f c n ^ " o u t ^ r Partio° • * * "
specified by tlie terms of this A^eemeAt- f reBclnd8« «>»y action
attributable to acts or conduct- f , "ny """on not
shall, upon complainant■ T o t t e n rJouoerP fn*nt' U,« <*"«■"«!complaint for further proce«iflfl relnetata th®
may request that the terms nf th° ComPA"inant
= p . = i « = . i i y i „ Pi m ,en ted by
by the last S” thtd? h ^ ° f,I:̂ ‘f“^ ”Cmlt:o»h°n th° d°tc nlSn=d
Leber/ C A P T ~ USCG
--- Personnel Division
Maintenance t Lopistlcs co™a„d. Atlantic
Grant
Chief,
Mainte
Date: /d///
Jaffres Whack""
Civil Rights Officer
Maintenance G Logistic Command, Atlantic
Date:
Vincent Martin
Complainant
Data: 1 //..•//*''
3
A - 6 5
A - 6 6
MARY JO WHITE
U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y f o r t h e
S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York
By: JENNIFER K. BROWN (J B -4 2 2 2 )
A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y
100 Church S t r e e t , 1 9 th F l o o r
New York, New York 10007
T e l e p h o n e N o . : (212) 3 8 5 - 6 3 6 0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANSWER TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPT.ATMT
96 C iv . 3967 (JGK)
The d e f e n d a n t , Rodney s l a t e r , 1 by h i e a t t o r n e y , Mary
J o W h i t e , u n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y f o r t h e S o u th e r n D i s t r i c t o f New
York ( h e r e i n a f t e r , t h e "Government■•) , a n s w e r s t h e s e c o n d amended
c o m p l a i n t ( h e r e i n a f t e r , t h e " c o m p l a in t" ) on i n f o r m a t i o n and
b e l i e f a s f o l l o w s :
1 * The a l l e 9 a t l ° n s in p a r a g r a p h s l t h r o u g h 2 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t c o n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t o w hich no r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g i s r e q u i r e d . To t h e e x t e n t a r e s p o n s e i s r e q u i r e d , t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s a r e d e n i e d .
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v .
RODNEY SLATER, S e c r e t a r y ,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
D e n i e s k n o w led g e or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
T r a n s p o r t a t ' ^
Rodney S l a t e r " h a v f n g ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ e d ^ I s ^ o s ^ i o n ^ L ^ e ^ " i " *
A - 6 7
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p aragraph 3 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f h a s been em ployed by t h e
United States Coast Guard (the "Coast Guard") since on or about
February 24, 1991.
3. D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f
p a r a g r a p h 4 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t . The r e m a i n i n g a l l e g a t i o n s i n s a i d
p ara g ra p h c o n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t o w hich no r e s p o n s i v e
P l e a d i n g i s r e q u i r e d . To t h e e x t e n t a r e s p o n s e i s r e q u i r e d , t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s a r e d e n i e d .
4 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p aragrap h 5 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t t h e Government r e c e i v e d t h e
document a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t a s E x h i b i t A on or a b o u t
Septem ber 6 , 1 9 9 5 , and t h a t t h e D e p a r tm e n ta l O f f i c e o f C i v i l
R i g h t s , U .S . D epartm ent o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Cambridge,
M a s s a c h u s e t t s r e c e i v e d t h e document a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t a s
E x h i b i t A on or a b o u t December 15, 1 9 9 5 .
5 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p ara g ra p h 6 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t t h e Government i s s u e d t h e l e t t e r
a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t a s E x h i b i t B t o p l a i n t i f f on o r a b o u t
F eb ru ary 2 6 , 1 9 96 , and r e s p e c t f u l l y r e f e r s t h e Court t o t h e
document f o r i t s c o n t e n t s .
6 * The a l l e g a t i o n s in t h e f i r s t and f o u r t h s e n t e n c e s
o f p aragrap h 7 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t c o n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t o
w h ich no r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g i s r e q u i r e d . To t h e e x t e n t a
r e s p o n s e i s r e q u i r e d , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e f i r s t and f o u r t h
s e n t e n c e s o f p a r a g r a p h 7 a r e d e n i e d . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n
2
A - 6 8
t h e s e c o n d and t h i r d s e n t e n c e s o f p a ra g ra p h 7 o f t h e c o n p l a i n t ,
except admits that the Departmental Office of civil Rights, u.s.
Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts received
the document a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t a s E x h i b i t A on o r ab ou t
December 15 , 1 9 95 .
7- D e n i e s k n o w led g e o r i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h 8 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f h a s been em p lo y ed by t h e
c o a s t Guard s i n c e on o r ab o u t February 24 , 1991 and t h a t s h e i s
c u r r e n t l y employed by t h e C o a s t Guard in W ash ington , D.C. a t t h e
GS-13 l e v e l .
8 . Admits t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n paragraph 9 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t .
9 . The a l l e g a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g James Whack in
p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t were
d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n by an O p in io n and Order d a t e d J u l y i s ,
1997 and t h e r e f o r e do n o t r e q u i r e an a n sw er . The a l l e g a t i o n s i n
p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t c o n c e r n i n g a c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e
o f employment s t a t e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s t o which no r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g i s r e q u i r e d . D e n ie s t h e r e m a in in g a l l e g a t i o n s i n
p a r a g r a p h 10 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t Norma Losada
and V i n c e n t M art in have been em ployed by t h e C o a s t Guard, a t
t i m e s i n s u p e r v i s o r y c a p a c i t i e s , and h a v e been a s s i g n e d t o t h e
c o a s t Guard f a c i l i t y a t G o v e r n o r ' s I s l a n d , New York.
1 0 . D e n i e s k n o w led g e o r i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h l l o f
A - 69
the complaint.
1 1 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in paragraph 12 o f t h e
complaint, e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f was a s s i g n e d by V i n c e n t
Martin to r e p r e s e n t t h e C o a s t Guard i n a m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e M er i t
Systems P r o t e c t i o n Board ("MSPB").
1 2 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 13 t h r o u g h 14
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
1 3 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p aragrap h 15 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f had n o t p r e v i o u s l y
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e C o a s t Guard i n a m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e MSPB.
1 4 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p ara g ra p h 16 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t V i n c e n t M art in has r e p r e s e n t e d t h e
C o a st Guard i n m a t t e r s b e f o r e t h e MSPB.
15 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 17 t h r o u g h 26
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
16 . D e n i e s kn ow led ge or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p ara g ra p h 27 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t .
1 7 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p ara g ra p h 28 o f t h e
complaint.
1 8 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h 29 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f r e p r e s e n t e d t h e C o a s t
Guard b e f o r e t h e MSPB.
1 9 . D e n i e s k n ow led ge or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 30
t h r o u g h 32 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
4
A-7 0
2 0 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n paragraph 33 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t a r e q u e s t f o r c o m p e n sa to r y t im e
f i l e d by p l a i n t i f f was n o t approved i n f u l l .
21 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p aragraph 34 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t C o a s t Guard e m p lo y e e s who have
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e C o a s t Guard b e f o r e t h e MSPB have a t t i m e s
r e c e i v e d c o m p e n s a to r y t i m e .
2 2 . Admits t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p aragraph 35 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t .
2 3 . D e n i e s k n ow led ge o r i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 36
t h r o u g h 37 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
2 4 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 38 t h r o u g h 39
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t p l a i n t i f f w r o te a memorandum
d a t e d J a n u a r y 9 , 1995 and t h a t t h e memorandum i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e
c o m p l a i n t a s E x h i b i t c , and r e s p e c t f u l l y r e f e r s t h e Court t o t h e
document f o r i t s c o n t e n t s .
2 5 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in paragraph 40 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t .
2 6 . D e n i e s k n o w led g e o r i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p ara g ra p h 41 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t .
2 7 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 42 th r o u g h 45
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
2 8 . D e n i e s k n ow led ge or i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o form
a b e l i e f a s t o t h e t r u t h o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a ra g ra p h 46 o f
A- 7 1
the complaint.
2 9 . The a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 47 t h r o u g h 52 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t were d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n
by and O p in io n and Order d a t e d J u l y i s , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e do n o t
r e q u i r e an an sw er .
3 0 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a ra g ra p h 52a o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t and r e s p e c t f u l l y r e f e r s t h e c o u r t t o t h e p e r fo r m a n c e
e v a l u a t i o n r e f e r e n c e d t h e r e i n f o r i t s c o n t e n t s .
3 1 . The a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 53 t h r o u g h 70 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t were dismissed from t h i s a c t i o n
by an O p in io n and Order d a t e d J u l y i s , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e do no t
r e q u i r e an a n sw er .
32 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h 70a o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t .
3 3 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h 71 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t t h e Government h as p ro d u ced
d o cu m en ts t o p l a i n t i f f d u r i n g d i s c o v e r y on t h i s a c t i o n .
34 . The a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 72 and 73 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t were d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n
by an O p in io n and Order d a t e d J u l y i s , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e do n o t
r e q u i r e an a n sw er .
3 5 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h 74 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t , e x c e p t a d m i t s t h a t V i n c e n t M art in w r o t e t h e docum ent
a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t a s E x h i b i t F, and r e s p e c t f u l l y r e f e r s
t h e C ourt t o t h e document f o r i t s c o n t e n t s .
3 6 . The a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 75 t h r o u g h 76 o f t h e
6
A - 7 2
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t w ere d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n
b y an O p in io n and O rder d a t e d J u l y i s , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e do n o t
r e q u i r e an a n s w e r .
3 7 . i n r e s p o n s e t o p a r a g r a p h 77 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
r e p e a t s and r e a l l e g e s t h e a n s w e r s t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 th r o u g h 76 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t a s i f f u l l y r e s t a t e d h e r e i n .
3 8 . The a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 78 th r o u g h 79 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t w ere d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n
b y an O p in io n and O rder d a t e d J u l y i 8 , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e d o n o t
r e q u i r e an a n s w e r . To t h e e x t e n t t h e y may be deem ed r e l e v a n t t o
c l a i m s n o t d i s m i s s e d by t h e O p in io n and O rd er d a t e d J u l y 1 8 ,
1 9 9 7 , t h e y a r e d e n i e d .
3 9 . i n r e s p o n s e t o p a r a g r a p h 8 0 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
r e p e a t s and r e a l l e g e s t h e a n s w e r s t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 th r o u g h 79 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t a s i f f u l l y r e s t a t e d h e r e i n .
4 0 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 81 t h r o u g h 82
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
4 1 . In r e s p o n s e t o p a r a g r a p h 83 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
r e p e a t s and r e a l l e g e s t h e a n s w e r s t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 th r o u g h 82 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t a s i f f u l l y r e s t a t e d h e r e i n .
4 2 . D e n i e s t h e a l l e g a t i o n s in p a r a g r a p h s 84 t h r o u g h 85
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t .
4 3 . i n r e s p o n s e t o p a r a g r a p h 86 o f t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
r e p e a t s and r e a l l e g e s t h e a n s w e r s t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 th r o u g h 85 o f
t h e c o m p l a i n t a s i f f u l l y r e s t a t e d h e r e i n .
7
A - 7 3
4 4 . The a l l e g a t i o n s i n p a r a g r a p h s 87 t h r o u g h 88 o f t h e
c o m p l a i n t p e r t a i n t o c l a i m s t h a t w ere d i s m i s s e d from t h i s a c t i o n
by an O p in i o n and O rder d a t e d J u l y 18 , 1997 and t h e r e f o r e do n o t
r e q u i r e an a n s w e r .
FIRST A FFIRMATIVE DFFFN.qr
4 5 . The c o m p l a i n t f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r w h ic h
r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d .
.SECOND AFFTRMATTVF PEFFKT.gr
4 6 . P l a i n t i f f h a s f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e m e d i e s .
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFFNSF
4 7 . The C o u rt l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t
m a t t e r o f t h i s a c t i o n .
FOURTH AFFTRMATTVF DEFFNSF
4 8 . P l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a t r i a l by j u r y .
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DFFFN.gr
4 9 . P l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o c o m p e n s a t o r y d a m a g e s .
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE PFFFN.gF
5 0 . P l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f
a d d r e s s i n g t h e M a r t in EEO C o m p la in t , t h e s e t t l e m e n t t h e r e o f , o r
t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f EEO c o m p l a i n t s .
8
A- 7 4
WHEREFORE, d e f e n d a n t demands ju d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e
complaint and g r a n t i n g s u c h o t h e r and f u r t h e r r e l i e f a s t h i s
Court deems p r o p e r , i n c l u d i n g h i s c o s t s and d i s b u r s e m e n t s .
Dated: New Y ork, New York
A u g u s t 1 , 1997
B y :
U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y f o r t h e
S o u th e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York
A t t o r n e y f o r D e f e n d a n t
R odney S l a t e r , S e c r e t a r y
U n i t e d S t a t e s
D ep a r tm en t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
JENNIFER K .1 BROWN (J B - 4 2 2 2 )
A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y
100 Church S t r e e t , 1 9 t h F l o o r
New York, New York 1 0 0 0 7
T e l . : (2 1 2 ) 3 8 5 - 6 3 6 0
TO: G e o f f r e y A. M ort, E sq .
A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f
Goodman & Z u c h le w s k i
5 0 0 F i f t h A v en u e , S u i t e 5225
New Y ork , New York 1 0 1 1 0
9
A - 7 5
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: JENNIFER K. BROWN (JB-4222)
Assistant United States Attorney
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone N o . : (212) 385-6360
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.............................................x
ANNE M. FIORILLO, !
Plaintiff, .
FEDERICO F . PENA, SECRETARY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O F '
TRANS PORTATION,
Defendant.
x
96 Civ. 3967 (JGK)
NOTICE OF MQTTDm
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the prior pleadings and
proceedings herein, the accompanying Declaration of Jennifer K.
Brown, executed February 21, 1997, and the exhibits attached
thereto, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law, defendant
Federico F. Pena, Secretary, United States Department of
Transportation, shall move this Court, before the Honorable John
G. Koeltl, United States District Judge, in the United States
courthouse, Courtroom 12B, 500 Pearl street. New York, New York
10007, on March 14. 1997 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, for an order pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the complaint, and
an order pursuant to Rule 2 6 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure staying discovery pending the determination of this
A - 7 6
motion, and for such other and further relief as the C ourt deem s
just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Civil Rule
3(c)(2) of the Civil Rules of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, answering memoranda, if
any, shall be served at least seven days before the return date.
Dated: New York, New York
February 21, 1997
By:
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for Defendant
Federico F. Pena, Secretary
United States
i o n
United States Attorney
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York, New York
Tel.: (212) 385-6360
TO: Geoffrey A. Mort, Esq.
Goodman & Zuchlewski
Attorneys for Plaintiff
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5225
New York, New York 10110
2
A - 7 7
M
I
C
R
O
F
I
L
M
JU
L
5 2
19
97
-9
o«
flM
PNITKU STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK
ANNE M. FIORELLO,
-against-
Plaintiff,
FEDERICO F. PENA, SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
. n
T e c ■ # %
78952
96 Civ. 3967 (JGK)
OPINION AND ORDER
CO
APPEARANCES:
For the plaintiff:
For the defendant:
Geoffrey A. Mort
Goodman & Zuchlewski ' . r̂
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5225
New York, New York 10110 -h
(212) 869-1940
Valerie A. Voorhees
2166 Broadway
New York, New York
(212) 877-3435
Mary Jo White
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York by Jennifer K. Brown
Assistant United States Attorney
100 Church Street, 19th Floor
New York. New York 10007
(212) 385-6360
TJ
w o C 'J
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
A t a c o n f e r e n c e h e l d on J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 , t h e C o u r t made
t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l i n g s :
1) The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s p o r t i o n s o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y p u r s u e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e m e d i e s i s d e n i e d .
2) The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
A - 7 8
c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n i s d e n i e d .
3) The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f '
c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e EEO c o m p l a i n t f i l e d b y M a r t in i s g r a n t e d .
4) The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s a l l o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r EEO
c o m p l a i n t i s g r a n t e d .
SO ORDERED.
D a te d : New Yg*k, New YorkJuly (g , 1 9 9 7
-
A - 7 9
/ /xiixor ag
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANNE M. FIORELLO,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v .
FEDERICO F. PENA, SECRETARY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF*
TRANSPORTATION,
96 C iv . 3 9 6 7 JGK
D e f e n d a n t .
J u l y 1 8 , 1 9 9 7
1 1 : 2 0 a .m .
B e f o r e :
HON. JOHN G. KOELTL,
D i s t r i c t J u d g e
APPEARANCES
GOODMAN & ZUCHLEWSKI
A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f
GEOFFREY A . MORT
MARY JO WHITE
U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y f o r t h e
S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York
JENNIFER K. BROWN
A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y
DECISION
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 8 0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
• • -i- -i- j- j. lj i_ d y 35
THE COURT: I am p r e p a r e d t o r u l e .
The p l a i n t i f f , Ann M. F i o r e l l o , f i l e d a S ec o n d
Amended C o m p la in t a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t , F e d e r i c o F. P en a ,
a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s f o r s e x d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a g e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
and r e t a l i a t i o n . The S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t a l s o a l l e g e s
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t e d i n a - d i l a t o r y and u n r e a s o n a b l e
m anner i n i t s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y p r o c e s s p l a i n t i f f ' s EEO
c o m p l a i n t . " The d e f e n d a n t now m o v e s , p u r s u a n t t o R u le 1 2 ( c )
o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t o d i s m i s s t h e
S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t i n i t s e n t i r e t y .
m e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t , w h ic h a r e
a c c e p t e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s m o t io n , a r e a s f o l l o w s . The
p l a i n t i f f , who i s e m p lo y e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o a s t G uard,
w as p o s t e d from F e b r u a r y 1991 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 5 a t G o v e r n o r s
I s l a n d i n New Y ork, w here s h e w ork ed a s a p e r s o n n e l
m anagem ent s p e c i a l i s t . (S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t a t
p a r a g r a p h 8 ) . The p l a i n t i f f s t a t e s t h a t u n t i l t h e i n c i d e n t s
a l l e g e d i n t h e S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t s h e had r e c e i v e d
p e r fo r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n s o f - d i s t i n g u i s h e d . " ( i d . a t
p a ra g ra p h l l ) .
In S e p te m b e r 1 9 9 4 , t h e p l a i n t i f f was a s s i g n e d b y
l e r s u p e r v i s o r , V in c e n t M a r t in , t o r e p r e s e n t t h e C o a s t Guard
i t a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e M e r i t S y s te m s P r o t e c t i o n B oard
"MSPB") ( i d . a t p a r a g r a p h 1 2 ) . The p l a i n t i f f c o n t e n d s
h a t d u r in g h e r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e MSPB h e a r i n g , M a r t in
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 8 1
luj. ciy
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
36
f a i l e d t o g i v e h e r Che sam e " l e v e l o f m e n c o r in g , a d v i c e ,
a s s i s c a n c e and C r a i n i n g w ic h r e s p e c c t o p r e p a r i n g t h e a p p e a l
a s w as g i v e n t o y o u n g e r e m p l o y e e s . " ( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 1 4 ) .
A f t e r s u c c e s s f u l l y r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e C o a s t Guard
a t a MSPB h e a r i n g , t h e p l a i n t i f f r e q u e s t e d t h a t s h e r e c e i v e
c o m p e n s a t o r y t i m e f o r t h e o v e r t i m e t h a t s h e had w orked i n
p r e p a r i n g f o r t h e MSPB h e a r i n g . ( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 3 1 ) . The
p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t on D ecem b er 5 , 1 9 9 4 , s h e w as t o l d b y
M a r t in t h a t h e w o u ld n o t a p p r o v e h e r r e q u e s t f o r
c o m p e n s a t o r y t i m e . ( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 3 3 ) . The p l a i n t i f f
f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t c o m p e n s a t o r y t im e w as g r a n t e d t o
y o u n g e r f e m a le e m p lo y e e s a s s i g n e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e C o a s t
Guard a t MSPB h e a r i n g s . ( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 3 4 ) .
The p l a i n t i f f s t a t e s t h a t on D ecem b er 6 , 1 9 9 4 s h e
t o l d M a r t in t h a t " sh e b e l i e v e d t h a t h e w as t r e a t i n g h e r
d i f f e r e n t l y from y o u n g e r e m p lo y e e s and t h a t s h e w as
c o n s i d e r i n g f i l i n g an EEO c o m p la i n t b a s e d on a g e . " ( I d . a t
p a r a g r a p h 3 5 ) . The S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t f u r t h e r a l l e g e s
t h a t on J a n u a r y 9 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s u b m i t t e d a " B e s s o n s
L earn ed " memorandum, d e t a i l i n g h e r a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t s h e had
n o t r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e s u p p o r t and t r a i n i n g from M a r t i n , and
a s s e r t i n g t h a t s h e h ad u n f a i r l y b e e n d e n i e d c o m p e n s a t o r y
t i m e . ( i d . a t p a r a g r a p h s 3 8 - 3 9 ) .
The p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t i n J a n u a r y 1 9 9 5 , i n
r e t a l i a t i o n f o r h e r " L e s s o n s L earn ed " memorandum, M a r t in
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 82
' XU1 “b
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
37
c o n d u c t e d a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s s h e made i n t h a t memorandum. ( i d . a t p a r a g r a p h s
4 2 - 4 5 ) . On March 9 , 1 9 9 5 , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S e c o n d Amended
C o m p la in t , C o a s t Guard EEO O f f i c e r Jam es Whack sh ow ed t h e
p l a i n t i f f a c o p y o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t f i l e d a g a i n s t h e r b y
M a r t in , w h ic h a l l e g e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had d i s c r i m i n a t e d
a g a i n s t M a r t in on t h e b a s i s o f h i s s e x . ( i d . a t p a r a g r a p h
4 7 ) . The p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t M a r t i n ' s EEO c o m p l a i n t was
f i l e d i n r e t a l i a t i o n f o r h e r a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t M a r t in had
d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t h e r on t h e b a s i s o f h e r s e x and a g e .
( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 4 8 ) .
On A p r i l 6 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e p l a i n t i f f c o n t a c t e d Whack
and t o l d h im t h a t s h e w is h e d t o f i l e an EEO c o m p l a i n t b a s e d
on a g e and r e p r i s a l s . On S e p te m b e r 6 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e p l a i n t i f f
f i l e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p la i n t o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
( A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o m p la in t o f D i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a t t a c h e d a s
E x h i b i t A t o S e c o n d Amended C o m p l a i n t ) . w i t h r e s p e c t t o
t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p la i n t o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , t h e
p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t Whack v i o l a t e d EEO r e g u l a t i o n s b y
h a n d l i n g t h e c a s e h i m s e l f r a t h e r t h a n a s s i g n i n g a c o u n s e l o r
t o t h e c a s e , b y f a i l i n g t o p r o v i d e t h e p l a i n t i f f w i t h
w r i t t e n n o t i f i c a t i o n o f h e r r i g h t s i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n , and
b y f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y fo r w a r d h e r c o m p l a i n t o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n . (S e c o n d Amended
C o m p la in t a t p a r a g r a p h s 5 2 - 6 2 )
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 83
' ' J .1 L X U I *9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
38
On A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 9 5 , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S ec o n d
Amended C o m p la in t , t h e p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d a p e r f o r m a n c e
r a t i n g o f " m e r i t o r i o u s , » r a t h e r t h a n t h e h i g h e r r a t i n g o f
d i s t i n g u i s h e d . ( I d . a t p a r a g r a p h 5 2 a ) . The p l a i n t i f f
a l l e g e s t h a t t h i s r a t i n g c o n s t i t u t e d r e t a l i a t i o n and t h a t
t h i s " i n a c c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n harm ed [h e r ] b y r a t i n g h e r l o w e r
t h a n o t h e r s i n t h e C o a s t G uard , p r e v e n t i n g h e r from
r e c e i v i n g a n y aw ard o r r e c o g n i t i o n f o r h e r a c h i e v e m e n t s
d u r i n g t h e t im e p e r i o d , and j e o p a r d i z i n g h e r c h a n c e s f o r
p r o m o t io n s i n t h e f u t u r e i f s h e w ere i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h
o t h e r s w i t h h i g h e r r a t i n g (a l i k e l y o c c u r r e n c e a t t h e h i g h e r
grade levels)." (Second Amended Complaint at paragraph
5 2 a ) .
"When d e c i d i n g a m o t io n t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n f o r
f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h ic h r e l i e f may b e g r a n t e d ,
t h e c o u r t 'm u st a c c e p t t h e m a t e r i a l f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e
c o m p l a i n t a s t r u e . " 1 S ta ro n v . M cD onald 's C o rp ., 51 F . 3 d
3 5 3 , 355 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o t i n g Cohen v . K oenig , 25 F . 3 d
1 1 6 8 , 1172 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . The c o u r t "must n o t d i s m i s s t h e
a c t i o n ' u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f
ca n p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ]
c l a i m w h ic h w o u ld e n t i t l e [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ] t o r e l i e f . " '
Cohen, 25 F . 3 d a t 1 1 7 2 ( q u o t i n g C onley v . G ibson, 355 U . S .
4 1 , 45 46 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) . "The c o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on a R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )
m o t io n i s n o t t o w e ig h t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t m ig h t b e p r e s e n t e d
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 84
' / x i i x u i a g
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
39
a t a t r i a l b u t m e r e l y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c o m p la i n t
i t s e l f i s l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t . " F esta v . L oca l 3
I n te r n a t io n a l B ro th erh o o d o f E l e c t r i c a l W orkers, 905 F . 2 d
3 5 , 37 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c i t i n g Goldman v . B e ld en , 7 5 4 F . 2 d
1 0 5 9 , 1067 (2d C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . The sam e s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s t o a
m o t io n f o r ju d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s . S e e v i l l a g e on Canon,
1 9 9 7 WL 4 7 6 0 4 "1 ( S . D . N . Y . 19 9 7 ) ( c i t i n g N a tio n a l
A s s o c ia t io n o f P h a rm a ceu tica l I n c . , 850 F . 2 d
9 0 4 , 904 n .2 (2d C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ) .
The d e f e n d a n t f i r s t m oves t o d i s m i s s p o r t i o n s o f
t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t tw o c l a i m s . I n h e r f i r s t c l a i m , f i l e d
p u r s u a n t t o 42 U . S . C . 2 0 0 0 e e t s e g . ( " T i t l e V I I " ) , t h e
p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t s h e was d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t on t h e
b a s i s o f s e x . H er s e c o n d c l a i m , f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o 29 U . S . C .
621 e t s e c . ("ADEA"), a l l e g e s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f
a g e . In r e g a r d t o t h e s e tw o c l a i m s , t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s
t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e m e d i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o h e r a s s e r t i o n s t h a t M a r t i n ' s d e n i a l
o f h e r r e q u e s t f o r c o m p e n s a to r y t im e and h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
o f h e r " L e s s o n s L earn ed " memorandum w e r e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .
A f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e s e e k i n g t o f i l e a c l a i m u n d e r
e i t h e r T i t l e V II o r ADEA m u st c o n t a c t t h e e m p lo y in g a g e n c y ' s
EEC c o u n s e l o r w i t h i n 45 d a y s o f t h e a l l e g e d l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
a c t i o n . S e e 29 C . F . R . 1 6 1 4 . 1 0 5 ( a ) ; s_ee a l s o B r i o n e s v .
Runyon, 101 F . 3 d 2 8 7 , 290 n . l (2d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . The p l a i n t i f f
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 8 5
j±. a y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
a l l e g e s t h a t s h e was u n l a w f u l l y d e n i e d c o m p e n s a t o r y t im e on
D ecem b er 6 , 1 9 9 4 , and t h a t M a r t in c o n d u c t e d h i s
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n J a n u a r y , 1 9 9 5 . H ow ever , t h e
p l a i n t i f f a c k n o w le d g e s t h a t s h e d i d n o t c o n t a c t Whack, t h e
EEO c o u n s e l o r , u n t i l A p r i l 6 , 1 9 9 5 , w h ic h was m ore th a n 45
d a y s a f t e r e i t h e r i n c i d e n t .
The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s f a i l u r e
t o c o n t a c t t h e EEO c o u n s e l o r i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n s h o u l d b e
e x c u s e d b e c a u s e t h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y c o n d u c t s h e s u f f e r e d
c o n s t i t u t e d a " c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n . " The c o n t i n u i n g
v i o l a t i o n d o c t r i n e t y p i c a l l y a p p l i e s t o s i t u a t i o n s w h ere
t h e r e a r e s p e c i f i c d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c i e s o r m e c h a n is m s ,
s u c h a s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s e n i o r i t y l i s t s o r em p loym en t t e s t s .
S e e Van Zant v . KLM R oyal D utch A i r l i n e s , 80 F . 3 d 7 0 8 , 713
(2d C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ; C ornw ell v s . R ob inson , 23 F . 3d 6 9 4 , 704 (2d
C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ; Lam bert v . G enesee Hosp. 10 F . 3 d 4 6 , 53 (2d C i r .
1 9 9 3 ) , £ e r t . d e n i e d , 114 S . C t . 1612 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a l s o w ise
v . New York C i ty P o lic e D epartm en t, 928 F .S u p p . 3 5 5 , 366
( S . D . N . Y . 1 9 9 6 ) . O r d i n a r i l y , " m u l t i p l e i n c i d e n t s o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , e v e n s i m i l a r o n e s , t h a t a r e n o t t h e r e s u l t
o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y o r m ech a n ism do n o t am ount t o a
c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n . " Lam bert, 10 F . 3 d a t 5 3 ; s e e a l s o Van
Z a n t , 80 F . 3 d a t 7 1 3 ; W ise, 928 F .S u p p . a t 3 6 6 . A
c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n may b e fo u n d i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a fo r m a l
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y o r m ech a n ism , h o w e v e r , "w here s p e c i f i c
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 86
• i u i d y
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
41
r e l a t e d i n s t a n c e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a r e p e r m i t t e d b y t h e
e m p lo y e r t o c o n t i n u e u n r e m e d ie d f o r s o l o n g a s t o amount t o
a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y o r p r a c t i c e . " C ornw ell, 23 F . 3 d a t
7 0 4 ; s e e e l g p Van Z a n t, 80 F . 3 d a t 7 1 3 ; W ise 928 F .S u p p . a t
3 6 6 .
The p l a i n t i f f d e s c r i b e s f o u r i n c i d e n t s t h a t s h e
a l l e g e s c o n s t i t u t e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o r r e t a l i a t i o n : M a r t i n ' s
d e n i a l o f h e r r e q u e s t f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y t i m e , M a r t i n ' s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f h e r " L e s s o n s L earn ed " memorandum, t h e EEO
c o m p l a i n t M a r t in f i l e d and h e r A u g u s t 1 6 , 1995 p e r f o r m a n c e
e v a l u a t i o n . A l l b u t o n e o f t h e s e f o u r a l l e g e d l y
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a c t i o n s w ere c o m m it te d b y M a r t in , and t h e
p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t t h e l a s t t h r e e a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d a
c a m p a ig n t o r e t a l i a t e a g a i n s t h e r f o r c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t
b e i n g d e n i e d c o m p e n s a t o r y t i m e . The p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t
t h e s e a r e s p e c i f i c and r e l a t e d i n s t a n c e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
w h ic h w ere p e r m i t t e d b y t h e e m p lo y e r t o c o n t i n u e s o l o n g a s
t o amount t o a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p o l i c y o r p r a c t i c e . The
p l a i n t i f f p l e a d s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t s a r e p a r t o f a
c o n t i n u i n g p a t t e r n o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f .
In r e s p o n s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s
o n l y a l l e g e d a s e r i e s o f u n r e l a t e d i n c i d e n t s , n o t a s i n g l e
c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n .
On a m o t io n f o r ju d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h i s
C o u rt c a n n o t d e c i d e w h ic h p a r t y ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e s e
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A- 87
/ / u t i o r a g 42
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 i n c i d e n t s i s c o r r e c t . A f a c t f i n d e r c r e d i t i n g t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s c o u l d f i n d t h a t a c o n t i n u i n g
v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d , a v i o l a t i o n t h a t c o n t i n u e d u n t i l t h e
p l a i n t i f f r e c e i v e d h e r p e r f o r m a n c e r a t i n g on A u g u s t 1 6 ,
1 9 9 5 . By t h a t t im e t h e p l a i n t i f f h ad a l r e a d y c o n t a c t e d h e r
EEO o f f i c e r . T h e r e f o r e , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s m o t io n f o r
ju d g m e n t on t h e p l e a d i n g , t h e s e c l a i m s c a n n o t b e d i s m i s s e d
f o r f a i l u r e t o c o n t a c t h e r EEO o f f i c e r i n a t i m e l y f a s h i o n .
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o m oves t o d i s m i s s b o t h t h e
p o r t i o n s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f - s r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m t h a t a r e b a s e d
on M a r t i n ' s f i l i n g o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t , and h e r r e t a l i a t i o n
c l a i m a r i s i n g from t h e p l a i n t i f f s A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 9 5
p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n . U nder e i t h e r ADEA o r T i t l e V I I , i n
o r d e r t o s t a t e a c l a i m f o r r e t a l i a t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f m ust
show t h a t "1 ) t h e p l a i n t i f f was e n g a g e d i n an a c t i v i t y
p r o t e c t e d u n d e r [ t h e s t a t u t e ] ; 2 ) t h e e m p lo y e r w as aw are o f
t h e p l a i n t i f f s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y ; 3 )
t h e p l a i n t i f f was s u b j e c t t o an a d v e r s e em p loym en t a c t i o n ;
and 4 ) t h e r e i s a n e x u s b e t w e e n t h e p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y and
t h e a d v e r s e a c t i o n t a k e n . - Wanamaker v . Columbian Rope C o . ,
108 F . 3 d 4 6 2 , 465 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c i t i n g B a rb er v . CSX
D is t r ib u t io n S e r v i c e s , 68 F . 3 d 6 9 4 , 7 0 1 (3 d C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
(ADEA) and Tomka v . S e i l e r Corp. , 66 F . 3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1308 (2d
C i r . 199 5 ) ( T i t l e V I I ) ) . The d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t n e i t h e r
M a r t i n ' s EEO c o m p l a i n t n o r t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 9 5
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 8 8
p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a d v e r s e em p loym en t
a c t i o n , and t h e r e f o r e t h e s e i n c i d e n t s c a n n o t g i v e r i s e t o a
r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m .
In Wanamaker v . Columbia Rope C o., 108 F . 3 d 462
(2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) , t h e C ourt o f A p p e a l s s t a t e d t h a t an a d v e r s e
em p loym en t a c t i o n i s n o t d e f i n d " s o l e l y i n t e r m s o f j o b
t e r m i n a t i o n o r r e d u c e d w a g es and b e n e f i t s , and t h a t l e s s
f l a g r a n t r e p r i s a l s b y e m p lo y e r s may i n d e e d b e a d v e r s e . "
Wanamaker, 108 F . 3 d a t 466 ( c i t i n g C o l l in s v . S ta te o f
I l l i n o i s , 830 F . 2 d 6 9 2 , 703 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . H ow ever , t h e
C o u rt m Wanamaker w en t on t o s t a t e t h a t ' " n o t e v e r y
u n p l e a s a n t m a t t e r s h o r t o f d i s c h a r g e o r d e m o t io n c r e a t e s a
c a u s e o f a c t i o n - f o r r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c h a r g e . " Wanamaker, 108
F . 3 d a t 466 ( q u o t i n g W elsh v . D e rw in sk i, 14 F . 3 d 85 , 86 ( 1 s t
C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . The t e s t , a s s e t f o r t h i n Wanamaker, i s
w h e t h e r t h e em p loym en t a c t i o n was " i n j u r i o u s t o c u r r e n t
em p loym en t o r t h e a b i l i t y t o s e c u r e f u t u r e e m p lo y m e n t ."
Wanamaker, 108 F . 3 d a t 4 6 6 .
The p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s t h a t h e r r e c e i p t o f t h e
r a t i n g o f m e r i t o r i o u s , a r a t i n g l o w e r th a n t h e r a t i n g o f
d i s t i n g u i s h e d s h e had p r e v i o u s l y r e c e i v e d , c o n s t i t u t e d an
a d v e r s e em p loym en t a c t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t d i s p u t e s t h i s
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s
d e m o n s t r a t e d no a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s from t h i s e v a l u a t i o n .
H ow ever , t h e p l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s e v a l u a t i o n harm ed
(
:
I
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
' / 1 X 1 1 U 1 «ag
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
44
h e r b y r a t i n g h e r l o w e r t h a n o t h e r s i n t h e C o a s t Guard,
w h ic h p r e v e n t e d h e r from r e c e i v i n g a n y aw ard o r r e c o g n i t i o n
f o r h e r a c h i e v e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e t im e p e r i o d and j e o p a r d i z e d
h e r c h a n c e s f o r p r o m o t io n s i n t h e f u t u r e i f s h e w e r e i n
c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h o t h e r s w i t h h i g h e r r a t i n g s . The C ourt
c a n n o t c o n c l u d e a s a m a t t e r o f la w t h a t a j u r y c o u l d n o t
f i n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d l y r e d u c e d p e r f o r m a n c e
r a t i n g was n o t an a d v e r s e em p loym en t a c t i o n , w h ic h i n j u r e d
b o t h h e r c u r r e n t em p loym en t s i t u a t i o n and h e r a b i l i t y t o
s e c u r e f u t u r e e m p lo y m e n t .
In t h o s e c a s e s c i t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a l o w e r th a n d e s i r e d p e r f o r m a n c e r a t i n g
c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d an a d v e r s e em p loym en t a c t i o n , t h e
p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t make s p e c i f i c a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t t h e
p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f s
c u r r e n t o r f u t u r e j o b p r o s p e c t s . S e e M ered ith v . Beech
A i r c r a f t C orp ., 18 F . 3 d 8 90 , 896 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ; S p e er v .
S a n d M cN ally & C o . , 1996 WL 6 6 7 8 1 0 *8 ( N . D . I 1 1 . N ovem ber 1 5 ,
1 9 9 6 ) . B o th M e r e d i t h and S p e e r w e r e d e c i d e d on m o t i o n s f o r
summary ju d g m e n t i n w h ic h t h e p l a i n t i f f was u n a b l e t o
e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e j o b p e r f o r m a n c e r a t i n g a c t u a l l y a f f e c t e d
t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s em p lo y m e n t .
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o a r g u e s t h a t M a r t i n ' s f i l i n g o f
an EEO c o m p la i n t c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d an a d v e r s e a c t i o n ,
b e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s n o t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f t h e
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 0
• / a y 45
EEO c o m p l a i n t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d h e r p r e s e n t o r f u t u r e
e m p lo y m e n t . The p l a i n t i f f d i s p u t e s t h i s a s s e r t i o n , a r g u i n g
t h a t d u r i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f M a r t i n ' s EEO c o m p l a i n t ,
f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s w e r e made t h a t c a s t h e r i n a n e g a t i v e
l i g h t .
To c o n s i d e r t h e f i l i n g o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t an
a d v e r s e em p loym en t a c t i o n w o u ld b e c o n t r a r y t o t h e r e m e d i a l
p u r p o s e s o f T i t l e V I I . " C o n g r e s s g a v e i n d i v i d u a l s a
s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e s s o f T i t l e V II
I n d i v i d u a l g r i e v a n t s u s u a l l y i n i t i a t e t h e . . . i n v e s t i g a t o r y
and c o n c i l i a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s . " A le x a n d e r v . G ardner-D enver
C o., 4 15 U . S . 3 6 , 45 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " in s u c h c a s e s , t h e p r i v a t e
l i t i g a n t n o t o n l y r e d r e s s e s h i s own i n j u r y b u t a l s o
v i n d i c a t e s t h e i m p o r t a n t C o n g r e s s i o n a l p o l i c y a g a i n s t
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y em p loym en t p r a c t i c e s . " I d .
T i t l e V I I ' s p r o h i b i t i o n on r e t a l i a t i o n i s
d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t e m p lo y e e s who f i l e EEO c h a r g e s . S e e
V e p n n s k y v . F lu o r D a n ie l, I n c . , 87 F . 3 d 8 8 1 , 889 ( 7 t h C i r .
1 9 9 6 ) ; Equal Employment O p p o r tu n ity Commission v . Cosm air,
I n c . L 'O rea l H a ir Care D iv is io n , 821 F . 2 d 1 0 8 5 , 1088 ( 5 t h
C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h i s p r o h i b i t i o n on r e t a l i a t i o n i n s u r e s t h a t
c o m p l a i n a n t s w i l l n o t "be p e n a l i z e d f o r r e s o r t i n g t o t h e
l e g a l p r o c e d u r e s t h a t C o n g r e s s h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t o r i g h t
c o n g r e s s i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d w r o n g s ." E a st v . Romine, I n c . ,
518 F . 2 d 3 3 2 , 340 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) .
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 1
' / J.J.L1UI ag
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
46
To a l l o w t h e f i l i n g o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t t o i t s e l f
g i v e r i s e t o a c l a i m o f r e t a l i a t i o n w o u ld u n d e r m in e t h e
p u r p o s e s o f T i t l e V I I ' s p r o h i b i t i o n on r e t a l i a t i o n . I f t h e
v e r y a c t o f f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t was i t s e l f a c t i o n a b l e ,
p l a i n t i f f s w o u ld b e c h i l l e d from a t t e m p t i n g t o v i n d i c a t e t h e
i m p o r t a n t c o n g r e s s i o n a l p o l i c i e s a d v a n c e d b y T i t l e VII.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e f i l i n g o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t c a n n o t b e
c o n s i d e r e d an a d v e r s e a c t i o n and t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s
r e g a r d i n g t h e f i l i n g o f t h e EEO c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t h e r m ust
b e d i s m i s s e d .
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o m oves t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m t h e
p l a i n t i f f h a s a s s e r t e d u n d e r T i t l e VII c h a l l e n g i n g t h e
d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r EEO c o m p l a i n t . The d e f e n d a n t
a r g u e s t h a t T i t l e VII p r o v i d e s no p r i v a t e r i g h t o f a c t i o n t o
c h a l l e n g e t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f an EEO c o m p l a i n t .
The C o u rt o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e S e c o n d C i r c u i t
r e c e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e E qual Em ploym ent O p p o r t u n i t y
C o m m iss io n c a n n o t b e s u e d u n d e r T i t l e V II f o r i t s a l l e g e d l y
im p r o p e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r p r o c e s s i n g o f a c o m p l a i n t o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . £ £ £ Baba v . Japan T ra ve l Bureau
I n t e r n a t io n a l , I n c . , i l l F . 3 d 2 , 6 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . C o u r ts
h a v e h e l d t h a t f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s t h a t i n t e r n a l l y
p r o c e s s EEO c o m p l a i n t s a r e s i m i l a r l y immune from s u i t . ^
Young v . S u l l i v a n , 733 F . S u p p . 1 3 1 , 132 ( D . D. C. 1 9 9 0 ) ,
a f f l d , 946 F . 2d 1568 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t , d e n i e d . 508
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 2
• A. XU1 d9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
47
U - S . 918 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; O liv a r e s v . NASA, 934 F . S u p p . 6 9 8 , 704 (D.
Md. 1 9 9 6 ) . T h u s, t h e p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t s u e t h e d e f e n d a n t
u n d e r T i t l e V II f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d l y im p r o p e r
p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r c o m p l a i n t .
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o m oves t o d i s m i s s a l l c l a i m s
b r o u g h t by t h e p l a i n t i f f u n d e r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e
A c t ("APA"). The d e f e n d a n t f i r s t a s s e r t s t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t
t h e p l a i n t i f f i n h e r S e c o n d Amended C o m p la in t s t a t e s a c l a i m
f o r em p loym en t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e APA, t h a t c l a i m m u st
b e d i s m i s s e d . I t i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t T i t l e V II i s t h e
e x c l u s i v e rem edy f o r c l a i m s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n f e d e r a l
e m p lo y m e n t . S e e Brown v . G eneral S e r v ic e s A d m in is tr a t io n ,
4 25 U . S . 8 20 , 8 2 8 - 2 9 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; B r io n e s , 101 F . 3 d a t 289 (2d
^-996) . T h e r e f o r e , no c l a i m f o r em p loym en t
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n can b e m a in t a i n e d u n d e r t h e APA. S gg Hannon
v . C hater, 887 F . S u p p . 1 3 0 3 , 1319 ( N . D . C a l . 1 9 9 5 ) ; C arlson
v . U n ited S ta te s D epartm ent o f H e a lth and Human S e r v ic e s ,
879 F . S u p p . 5 4 5 , 549 (D.Md. 199 5 ) .
The d e f e n d a n t a l s o m oves t o d i s m i s s t h e
p l a i n t i f f s c l a i m u n d e r t h e APA i n w h ic h s h e a l l e g e s t h a t
t h e d e f e n d a n t a c t e d i n a " d i l a t o r y and u n r e a s o n a b l e m anner
m i t s f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y p r o c e s s p l a i n t i f f ' s EEO c o m p l a i n t . "
The d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f an EEO c o m p la i n t
i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e u n d e r t h e APA.
O n ly f i n a l a g e n c y a c t i o n s " f o r w h ic h t h e r e i s no
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 3
lui dg
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
48
o t h e r a d e q u a t e rem edy i n a c o u r t a r e s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l
r e v i e w - u n d e r t h e APA. 5 U . S . C . 7 0 4 . The p r o c e s s i n g o f EEO
c o m p l a i n t s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e f i n a l a g e n c y a c t i o n b e c a u s e
i t d o e s n o t h a v e " ‘d e t e r m i n a t e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e p a r t y t o
t h e p r o c e e d i n g , -" b u t i n s t e a d i s m e r e l y a p r e c u r s o r t o a
s u i t i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . Ward v . Equal Employment- O p p o r tu n ity
C om m ission , 719 F . 2 d 3 1 1 , 3 1 3 - 1 4 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) , c e r t .
d e n i e d , 466 U . S . 953 ( 1984) ( c i t i n g A ir C a l i fo r n ia v . U n ited
S ta te s D epartm ent o f T r a n s p o r ta tio n , 654 F . 2 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 1 n . 6
( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e q u ir e m e n t t h a t t h e r e b e
no o t h e r a d e q u a t e rem edy i s n o t s a t i s f i e d b e c a u s e a
c o m p la i n a n t d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f h i s o r h e r
c o m p l a i n t c a n , a s t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s d o n e i n t h i s c a s e , f i l e
s u i t u n d e r T i t l e V II i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . £ e e Ward, 719 F . 2 d
a t 3 1 4 ' ^damg v . U n i t e d S t a t e s E q u a l Employmen t O n n nrtun i t-y
g o m m is g ip n , 932 F . S u p p . 6 60 , 664 ( E . D . P a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; M ackey v .
S u l l i v a n , 1991 WL 1 2 8 5 1 0 *3 ( D. D . C . March 2 8 , 1 9 9 1 ) .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m u n d e r t h e APA s e e k i n g
r e v i e w o f t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r EEO c o m p l a i n t i s d i s m i s s e d .
In summary, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s
p o r t i o n s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s f o r f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y
c o n t a c t an EEO c o u n s e l o r i s d e n i e d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n
t o d i s m i s s t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e
e v a l u a t i o n i s d e n i e d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e EEO c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 4
/ / xj.Lj.ui dy 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1 M a r tin in g r a n t e d . The d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t io n t o d i s m i s s a l l o f
h e r p l a i n t i f f s c l a im s r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f h e r EEO
c o m p la in t i s g r a n t e d .
A l l r i g h t , we ca n now g o o f f t h e r e c o r d t o
d i s c u s s s c h e d u l in g .
( P r o c e e d in g s a d jo u r n e d )
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS 805-0300
A - 9 5
t
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
“’ QOI w ^ 6 5
Plaintiff,
-against-
RODNEY SLATER, Secretary,
u n it e d s t a t e s d e p a r t m e n t o f
TRANSPORTATION,
96 Civ. 3967 (JGK)
OPINION AND ORHFP
Defendant. —
APPEARANCES: r~o - ' 1 ’
For the Plaintiff Valerie A. Voorhees
Fax: 212-877-3975 - -' c5 11
'■ - o -3
Geoffrey A. Mort
Fax: 212-768-3020
For the Defendant Jennifer K. Brown
Fax: 212-385-6252
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
" ' ^ Plamtiffs m°tion for reconsideration is denied. There are no facts or
v f i
l~ controlling legal authorities explained by the plaintiff that the Court overlooked in its initial
O decision. Nor, having reviewed all of the plaintiffs submissions, is there any error in the
f '■
( ; cn Court’s original decision.art
C~-
C'
o_
The PkmtifFs motion for the entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b) of the
A - 9 6
Federal Ruler of Civil Procedure is denied. See Advanced M anner.. ,nr „
EmncrsUnc,, 106 F.3d 11, 16 (2d Cir. 1997). Partial judgment should be used sparingly
avoid piecemeal appeals. See Yaba v. Roosevelt, 961 F. Supp. 611, 626 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
The plaintiff concedes that "the factual background for all the claims is . . . closely related
or, to some degree, dte same . . .. • Pi, Reply Memo a, 8. Partial judgment would
therefore result in piecemeal appeals and the consideration of the facts of this case on two
separate occasions by the Court of Appeals. There is no sufficient countervailing argument
of hardship or prejudice tn this case to warrant a ptecetneal appeal. See Ginen v ------- -
la sk Group, Inc., 962 F.2d 1085, 1092-93 (2d Cir. 1992).
Therefore, the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. The plaintiffs
motion for partial judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) is denied
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
September 24, 1997
-2-
A - 9 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v .
RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT' OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
-x
ORIGINAL
96 Civ. 3967 (JGK)(HBP)
STIPULATION OF PARTIAL
VOLUNTARY DTSMTq.gAT
WHEREAS plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in
the above-captioned action on April 24, 1997; and
WHEREAS by Opinion and Order docketed July 2 1 , 1 9 9 7
(the ■■order”), and annexed hereto, the Court dismissed certain of
Plaintiffs claims for the reasons set forth in that Order and on
the record on July is, 1997; and
WHEREAS plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss,
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of civil
Procedure, the claims that were not dismissed by the Order (the
"remaining claims")• and
WHEREAS defendant has agreed to the voluntary dismissal
of the remaining claims, provided that the dismissal is with
prejudice; and
WHEREAS plaintiff intends to appeal the dismissal of
those claims that were dismissed by the Order;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the
parties, that:
(1) Plaintiffs remaining claims, meaning all those
claims raised in the above-captioned action that were not
dismissed by the Order attached hereto, are dismissed with
A - 9 8
prejudice and without costs or attorney's fees; and
(2) This dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff's
right to appeal any final judgment entered in the above-captioned
Case, to the extent that the judgment dismisses those claims
dismissed by the Order attached hereto; and
(3) Plaintiff shall not appeal any final judgment
entered in the above-captioned case, to the extent that the
judgment dismisses those claims that are voluntarily dismissed
herein.
Dated: New York, New York
October 20 , 1 9 9 7
GOODMAN & ZUCHLEWSKI
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: ^ e _
GLOFFREy " A^MOR£?
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5225
New York, New York 10110
Tel.: (212) 869-1940
By:
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney ̂ or Defendant
l
JNIFEk ij. BROWN fJB
Assistants United States
1 0 0 Church Street
New York, New York
Tel.: (212) 385-6360
2 2 )
Attorney
19th Floor
SO ORDERED:
United States Magistrate Judge
1 0 - 1 7 - ^ r r ls - (/
2
A - 9 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
96 C iv . 3 9 6 7 (JGK)(HBP)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS b y O p in io n and O rder d o c k e t e d J u ly 2 1 , 1 9 9 7
( t h e "O rder") t h e C ou rt d i s m is s e d c e r t a i n o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c la im s
in t h e a b o v e - c a p t io n e d a c t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n
and s t a t e d on t h e r e c o r d on J u ly 1 8 , 1 9 9 7 ; and
WHEREAS b y a S t i p u l a t i o n o f P a r t i a l V o lu n ta r y D i s m is s a l
e n t e r e d b y t h i s C ou rt on O c to b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , p l a i n t i f f h a s
v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m is s e d t h e r e m a in in g c la im s i n t h e a b o v e - c a p t io n e d
a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h i s c a s e i s d i s m is s e d w it h
p r e j u d i c e i n i t s e n t i r e t y . The C le r k i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r
ju d g m en t a c c o r d i n g l y .
D a te d : New Y ork , New Y ork
O c to b e r 3 0 , 1997
SO ORDERED:
_
U n ite d S t a t e s M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v .
RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
D e f e n d a n t .
A - 1 0 0
lyyC f\H: 0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
Plaintiff,
-against-
RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- --
96 CIVIL 3967(JGK)(HBP)
J U D G M E N T
Whereas by Opinion and Order docketed July 21, 1997, the Court having dismissed certain
of plaintiff s claims in the above-captioned action for the reasons set forth therein and stated on the
record on July 18, 1997;
Whereas by a Stipulation of Partial Voluntary Dismissal entered by this Court on October
27, 1997, plaintiff having voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims in the above-captioned action
with prejudice, and
Whereas the above-entitled action having been assigned to the Honorable Henry B. Pitman,
United States Magistrate Judge, who on October 30, 1997 having issued his Order of Dismissal
dismissing the case in its entirety with prejudice, it is,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That pursuant to the Court’s Order
of Dismissal dated October 30, 1997, this case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety
DATED: New York, New York
October 31, 1997 JAMES M PARKISON:
i
i
!
CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
THIS DOCUMENT WAS ENTERED
Tiir nnoirnne i l l ? - ,
A - 1 0 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANNE M. FIORILLO,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v s .
RODNEY SLATER, S e c r e t a r y ,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION,
D e fe n d a n t .
96 C iv . 3967 (JGK)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
P l a i n t i f f , b y h e r u n d e r s ig n e d c o u n s e l , a p p e a ls from th e f i n a l
ju d gm en t e n t e r e d in t h i s c a s e on Novem ber 5 , 1 9 9 7 .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m it te d ,
VALERIE A. VOORHEES, ESQ.
A tto r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f
305 B roadw ay, S u i t e 500
New Y ork, New York 1 0 007
(212) 5 0 2 -3 4 1 0
GOODMAN Sc ZUCHLEWSKI
A t t o r n e y s f o r P l a i n t i f f
500 F i f t h A ven u e , S u i t e 5225
New Y ork , New York 1 0 1 1 0 -5 1 9 7
(212) 8 6 9 -1 9 4 0
By:
G eo ffrey ^ A .C M o rt XGM5254)
A - 1 0 2