Albert P. Schultz, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 8, 1999
01986495 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 8, 1999)

01986495

11-08-1999

Albert P. Schultz, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Albert P. Schultz v. United States Postal Service

01986495

November 8, 1999

Albert P. Schultz, )

Appellant, )

)

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01986495

) Agency No. 4C-150-0048-98

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On August 24, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal of a final agency

decision, which was dated July 20, 1998, dismissing his complaint,

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ��1614.107(a), (b), and (d), for failure to state

a claim, for stating the same claims previously decided by the agency

and the Commission, for failure to seek timely EEO counseling, and for

raising the same matters in his appeal to the Merit Systems Protection

Board (MSPB).

The record indicates that appellant contacted an EEO Counselor on

March 19, 1998, alleging discrimination based on mental and physical

disabilities (depression and Raynaud's syndrome) and in reprisal for

prior EEO activity when from 1988 to the present, the agency engaged in

"a pattern of, a practice of, a continuing violation of, and continuing

discrimination," harassment, and retaliation against him; and the agency

failed to accommodate his disabilities and denied him due process in

processing his EEO complaints. Unable to resolve the matters informally,

appellant filed a formal complaint dated May 19, 1998, which incorporated

a number of his prior correspondence to the agency. Therein, appellant,

reiterating the issues raised during EEO counseling, alleged that on

March 11, 1998, he was offered a rehabilitation work assignment which

did not properly accommodate his disabilities in order to force him to

be disqualified from workers' compensation.

In its final decision, the agency, reiterating the content of the EEO

Counselor's Report, identified the allegations of appellant's complaint

as whether he was discriminated against when from 1988 to the present,

the agency engaged in a pattern of, a practice of, a continuing violation

of, and continuing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against

him; and the agency failed to accommodate his disabilities and denied

him due process in processing his EEO complaints.

The agency noted that on June 11, 1993, appellant previously filed

a complaint concerning his removal of November 24, 1992. The agency

further noted that appellant, thereafter, appealed the agency's dismissal

of that complaint to the MSPB which rendered a decision on July 11, 1995,

reversing the agency's dismissal and ordering the agency to cancel the

removal and retroactively restore appellant with full back pay, interest

and benefit adjustments as appropriate effective November 24, 1992,

including compensatory damages of $5,000 in a subsequent appeal decision.

The agency also noted that it fully complied with the MSPB decisions,

and appellant, thereafter, took disability retirement effective November

17, 1997.

The agency also indicated that appellant raised numerous previous

repetitive allegations in his prior complaints, as well as in his

prior MSPB appeals, including the allegations in the present complaint.

The agency also indicated that an MSPB Administrative Judge previously

dismissed all of appellant's other added allegations concerning working

conditions and the agency's EEO complaint process. Finally, the agency

stated that with regard to the instant complaint, appellant failed

to state any unresolved matters; stated the same claims previously

filed and decided by the agency, the Commission, and the MSPB; and

sought counseling on March 19, 1998, ten (10) years after the alleged

discriminatory incidents.

Failure to State a Claim and Stating the Same Claims

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides that an agency may dismiss

a complaint which fails to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.103

or states the same claim that has been decided by the agency or the

Commission. The Commission's Federal sector case precedent has long

defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss

with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

Upon review, we find that several allegations in appellant's complaint,

concerning harassment, working conditions, reasonable accommodation,

and a rehabilitation work assignment, stated a claim. We note that

appellant was aggrieved due to the alleged incidents which affected a

term, condition, or privilege of his employment.

We, however, find that the allegation that the agency improperly processed

appellant's EEO complaints failed to state a claim. The Commission

has held that allegations of improper processing do not state separate

processable claims. See Kleinman v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05940579

(September 22, 1994); Story v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01965883 (March

13, 1997). When such allegations are raised the agency should refer

the complainant to the agency officials responsible for the quality of

complaint processing, and those individuals should earnestly attempt to

resolve dissatisfaction with the complaints process as early as possible.

See EEO MD 110, 4-8 (October 22, 1992).

Turning to the agency's dismissal of the complaint for stating the

same claims that had, previously, been decided by the agency and

the Commission, the record does not contain any evidence to support

its findings, i.e., by providing in the record a copy of the subject

decisions by the agency and/or the Commission. Thus, we find that the

agency's dismissal of the complaint on the subject grounds was improper.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(d) provides, in part, that the

agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint where

the complainant has raised the matter in an appeal to the Merit Systems

Protection Board and �1614.302 indicates that the complainant has elected

to pursue the non-EEO process.

We note that although the agency dismissed appellant's complaint on the

alternative grounds that appellant raised the same claims in his appeal to

the MSPB, the record is devoid of any evidence to support its findings,

i.e., by providing in the record a copy of the MSPB appeal petition

and/or its decision. Thus, we find that the agency's dismissal of the

complaint on the subject grounds was improper.

Untimely EEO Counselor Contact

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of

discrimination be brought to the attention of the EEO Counselor within

45 days of the alleged discriminatory event, or the effective date of

an alleged discriminatory personnel action.

The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed

to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the limitation period

is triggered under the EEOC Regulations. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2);

Ball v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880247 (July 6,

1988). Thus, the limitations period is not triggered until a complainant

should reasonably suspect discrimination, but before all the facts that

would support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.

In his complaint, appellant alleged that he was discriminated against

from 1988 through the present when he was harassed and was denied

reasonable accommodation. Specifically, appellant alleged that recently,

on March 11, 1998, he was offered a rehabilitation work assignment which

did not properly accommodate his disabilities and which would cause him

to be disqualified from workers' compensation. Appellant contacted an

EEO Counselor with regard to the matter on March 19, 1998, which was

within the 45-day time limit set by the regulations. Furthermore, we

note that the agency, in its decision, failed to address this allegation.

Since we consider the agency's omission of allegations as the dismissal of

such, we find that the agency failed to provide proper grounds for such

dismissal under the regulations. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.110. Therefore,

we find that the agency's decision dismissing the subject allegation by

failing to address such was improper. See Knapp v. Department of the

Navy, EEOC Request No. 05940662 (January 23, 1995).

With regard to the remaining allegations in the complaint, discussed

above, we find that they lack specificity and are too general. We note

that appellant merely alleged that he was subjected to a continuing

violation from 1988 to the present concerning harassment and the denial

of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities. Thus, we find that

the matter should be remanded back to the agency for clarification.

Based on the foregoing, the record is insufficient for us to determine

whether appellant's EEO contact was timely with regard to the subject

allegations. Therefore, the agency is Ordered, as stated below, to

conduct a supplemental investigation concerning the matter.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby MODIFIED, and

the allegations, except the allegation concerning the agency's EEO

complaint processing, are REMANDED to the agency for further processing

in accordance with this decision and applicable regulations.

ORDER

1. With regard to appellant's allegation regarding the March 11, 1998

rehabilitation work assignment, the agency is ORDERED to process the

subject allegation in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.108. The agency

shall acknowledge to appellant that it has received the subject allegation

within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.

The agency shall issue to appellant a copy of the investigative file and

also shall notify appellant of the appropriate rights within one hundred

fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless

the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the appellant

requests a final decision without a hearing, the agency shall issue a

final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt of appellant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to appellant and a copy

of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights

must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

2. With regard to the remaining allegations, the agency is Ordered to

take the following actions:

(a) The agency, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final, shall provide appellant with the opportunity

to clarify the subject allegations, i.e., regarding the dates and

the specific incidents being raised, as well as any personal loss or

injury he sustained as a result of the incidents. Appellant shall be

notified that he has thirty (30) calendar days within which to clarify

the allegations in response to the agency.

(b) Based on the foregoing, the agency, within sixty (60) calendar days

of the date that this decision becomes final, shall determine whether

to process the remanded allegations, i.e., notify appellant that the

allegations are being processed or that they will not be included in

the further processing of his complaint.

A copy of the request for clarification and a copy of the agency's

determination regarding the processing of the remanded allegations must

be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory. The

agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report

shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503(a). The appellant also has the right

to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. ��1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503(g). Alternatively,

the appellant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying

complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File

A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. ��1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to

the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1993). If the

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of

Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,

the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and any supporting documentation must be submitted with your

request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests

for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited

circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.604(c).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0993)

This decision affirms the agency's final decision in part, but it also

requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a

portion of your complaint. You have the right to file a civil action

in an appropriate United States District Court on both that portion of

your complaint which the Commission has affirmed AND that portion of the

complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative processing.

It is the position of the Commission that you have the right to file

a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court WITHIN

NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file

a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the

date you filed your complaint with the agency, or your appeal with the

Commission, until such time as the agency issues its final decision

on your complaint. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS THE

DEFENDANT IN THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD

OR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS OR HER FULL NAME AND

OFFICIAL TITLE. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case

in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and

not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the

action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.;

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ��791, 794(c).

The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of

the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time

in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action

must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above

("Right to File A Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

November 8, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations