Anibal Avillan, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 10, 1999
01990960 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 10, 1999)

01990960

12-10-1999

Anibal Avillan, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Anibal Avillan, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01990960

) Agency No. 1A-101-0078-98

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On November 9, 1998, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD) received by him on

October 22, 1998, pertaining to his complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant

alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age

(DOB: 1/24/44) when:

(1) throughout 1997 and 1998, and specifically, on May 15, 1998, he was

informed that only individuals with a test score of 110 would be hired

for the Cleaner/Custodian positions; and

(2) he was given drug tests on May 29, 1995 and October 16, 1995, but

was not selected for a position.

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to

Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified as 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2)), for untimely contact with an EEO Counselor.

Specifically, the agency determined that complainant's June 29, 1998

counselor contact regarding allegations (1) and (2) was beyond the

applicable time period for seeking counseling.

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

discrimination should be brought to the attention of the EEO Counselor

within forty-five (45) days of the date of the matter alleged to be

discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within forty-five

(45) days of the effective date of the action. The Commission has

adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed to a "supportive

facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45) day limitation

period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request

No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation is not

triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,

but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have

become apparent.

EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend

the time limits when the individual shows that he was not notified of the

time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know

and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or

personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented

by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within

the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency

or the Commission.

Here, complainant does not indicate that he was unaware of the time

limitations for counselor contact, nor does he suggest that he was

prevented for any reason, from timely seeking counseling concerning his

allegations of discrimination. Rather, complainant argues on appeal

that he first became aware that he had been dropped from the list of

potential candidates for available positions on May 15, 1998. However,

the record contains a copy of a letter from complainant dated April 4,

1997 in which he clearly indicates that he learned on March 24, 1997,

that his name had been �referred back to the Administrative Examination

Section.� Complainant also stated in his April 4, 1997 correspondence

that he was baffled that the agency had dropped him from the list on

September 8, 1994 after he had taken a pre-screening urine test on May

29, 1995 and another drug test on October 16, 1996.

Upon review, we determine that complainant's counselor contact on June

29, 1998 was untimely. The record indicates that complainant reasonably

suspected discrimination more than 45 days before his contact of an

EEO Counselor. We also determine that complainant knew well before

May 15, 1998 that based on his test score, he had been dropped from

the agency's list of potential candidates for available positions.

Complainant has failed to present persuasive evidence on appeal, to

justify the extension of the applicable time limits for any reason.

The agency's decision dismissing complainant's complaint as untimely is

AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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

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

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation

of material fact or law; or

2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operations of the agency.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS

OF RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). All requests and arguments must 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

timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration

of the applicable filing period. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604).

The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the

other party.

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

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

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

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)

You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States

District Court WITHIN NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you

receive this decision. If you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME AS

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

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

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

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

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

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

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)

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:

December 10, 1999

____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

______________ __________________________

Date 1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's

federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations

apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in

the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where

applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,

may also be found at the Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.