Francis v. Brown, 94-11146
| Decision Date | 17 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-11146,94-11146 |
| Citation | 58 F.3d 191 |
| Parties | 68 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 555, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,754 Kenneth E. FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald H. BROWN, Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Kenneth E. Francis, Dallas, TX, pro se.
Jon L. Gant, Asst. U.S. Atty., Paul E. Coggins, U.S. Atty., Joe C. Lockhart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, TX, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before DUHE, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth E. Francis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor Defendant Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Francis, a federal employee, alleged discrimination against his supervisors and the Department of Commerce under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment because Francis failed to accept the agency's settlement offer of full relief during the administrative process. We affirm.
Francis asked his supervisor, Melda Cabrera, if he could have three hours of leave to donate blood. Cabrera denied the request, but told Francis that he could take a reasonable amount of time to participate in the blood drive. Francis agreed. That afternoon, however, Francis left work at 2:00 p.m. and did not return. Two of his fellow employees left the office about the same time to participate in the blood drive, but they returned to the office later that afternoon. As a result, Cabrera charged Francis with seventy-five minutes of absence without leave.
Francis filed a discrimination complaint with his agency alleging that Cabrera's action amounted to intentional discrimination. In support, Francis cited a provision in his agency personnel handbook that allowed him up to four hours of leave to donate blood. To settle his complaint, the agency offered Francis compensation for his lost wages, withdrawal of the absence without leave charge against him, and removal from his personnel file all references to the incident. Francis rejected the agency's offer without giving any reason. The agency then dismissed his complaint, and Francis filed suit in federal district court.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Weyant v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 917 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1990). The district court held that an employee fails to exhaust his administrative remedies when he rejects a settlement offer constituting full relief for the claims he asserts. The court then granted summary judgment to the agency because its settlement offer constituted full relief for Francis's discrimination claim.
A federal employee must exhaust his administrative remedies against his federal employer before bringing suit under Title VII in federal court. Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832-33, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1967-68, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the employee must cooperate in good faith with the agency and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the administrative proceedings. Munoz v. Aldridge, 894 F.2d 1489, 1493 (5th Cir.1990).
The Second Circuit has applied the good faith requirement to dismiss a federal employee's claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when the employee rejected his agency's settlement offer during the administrative proceedings. Wrenn v. Secretary, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 918 F.2d 1073, 1078 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 977, 111 S.Ct. 1625, 113 L.Ed.2d 721 (1991). The Second Circuit reasoned:
The purpose of the good faith participation requirement is to give the administrative process an opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eugene v. Rumsfeld, CIV. A. H-99-4078.
...against him")); accord Fitzgerald v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 121 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir.1997); Francis v. Brown, 58 F.3d 191, 192 (5th Cir.1995); Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir.1992). The same rule applies to cases brought under the ADEA. See Belgrave v. Pena......
-
Taylor v. Dam
...U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs. 121 F.3d 203, 206 (5th Cir.1997); Jackson v. Widnall, 99 F.3d 710, 716 (5th Cir.1996); Francis v. Brown, 58 F.3d 191, 192 (5th Cir.1995); Pacheco v. Rice, 966 F.2d 904, 905 (5th Cir.1992); Hampton v. IRS, 913 F.2d 180, 182 (5th Cir.1990). Therefore, the filin......
-
Dunn v. Folgers Coffee Co.
...42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), but before suing, an employee must exhaust administrative remedies against their employer. See Francis v. Brown, 58 F.3d 191, 192 (5th Cir. 1995); Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832-33, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1967-68, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). If an employee fai......
-
Boswell v. Dept. of Treasury, Office of Comp., CIV.A.3:96-CV-2873-P.
...his administrative remedies against his federal employer before bringing suit under Title VII in federal court." Francis v. Brown, 58 F.3d 191, 192 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 96 S.Ct. 1961, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)). In that regard, the applicable stat......
-
Is Cooperation with the EEOC an Implied Requirement for Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?
...Concerning Federal Employees: A Proposed Analysis , 46 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 477, 480 (2002) (footnotes omitted); see also Francis v. Brown, 58 F.3d 191, 192–93 (5th Cir. 1995). 1358 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 98:1351 remedies. 31 In federal government employment discrimination suits, the test for g......