Opinion ID: 796224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature of Fernandez's Claim

Text: 34 The Department contends — for the first time on appeal — that Fernandez pursued a mixed discrimination case because his claim involves a prohibited personnel action over which the Merit Systems Protection Board has jurisdiction. The significance of the Department's argument is that, in a mixed case, Fernandez would have been required to appeal to the MSPB under § 7121(d) before commencing this action in the District Court, which he clearly did not do. Based upon our review of the Record, however, we conclude that Fernandez raised a pure discrimination claim and, therefore, that he was required to pursue his administrative remedies in the EEOC. 35 First, Fernandez was advised by letter dated December 13, 2001 that his EEO complaint was being dismissed because the matter was raised in a negotiated grievance procedure that permits allegations of discrimination. That letter characterized Fernandez's claim as a formal complaint of discrimination that raise[d] an allegation of retaliation identical to the one raised in the negotiated grievance procedure. Significantly, the letter specifically notified Fernandez that, while any allegations of discrimination must be raised in the grievance process because he elected to pursue his grievance in that forum,  [t]he final decision on the grievance may be appealed to the EEOC.  (emphasis added). The letter mentioned nothing of a mixed claim, a claim involving a prohibited personnel action under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MSPB, or a right to appeal to the MSPB if the result of arbitration was not favorable. As far as Fernandez knew, he had raised a pure discrimination claim and could appeal the final decision of the arbitrator to the EEOC. 36 Second, the Department's own motion to dismiss recognized that Fernandez had raised a pure discrimination claim that could be exhausted only in the EEOC. In support of the motion, the Department asserted that [e]ven if the decision to withdraw the arbitration was made by the union and not [Fernandez], [Fernandez] was still required to appeal to the EEOC before filing the present lawsuit if he was dissatisfied either with the [Department]'s offer, with the NTEU's decision to withdraw the arbitration, or with any other aspect of the grievance process. The Department further stated that Fernandez did not appeal to the EEOC, or take any other steps to pursue his grievance and [c]onsequently, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the union grievance process, thereby precluding him from bringing suit in court. Finally, the Department recognized that it had informed [Fernandez] in December 2001 that his EEO claim was barred by his prior decision to file a union grievance . . . . It also informed him that he could appeal the outcome of the grievance to the EEOC. The District Court relied on the Department's arguments and concluded that Fernandez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not appeal[ing] the result of the grievance process to the EEOC. 37 Third, the form Complaint provided to Fernandez at the time that he commenced this action characterized his claim as brought for discrimination in employment pursuant to . . . Title VII. The Complaint contained a notice advising that [i]n order to bring a suit in federal district under Title VII, you must first obtain a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In reliance upon this notice, Fernandez contacted the EEOC office to request a right to sue letter, but his request was denied. Based upon the foregoing, we find no evidence to support the Department's novel claim that Fernandez pursued a mixed case or was notified of his right to appeal to the MSPB and, in fact, find evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we conclude that Fernandez pursued a pure discrimination claim.