01a53275
07-26-2005
Anne M. Trumbla, Complainant, v. Alphonso Jackson, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.
Anne M. Trumbla v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
01A53275
07-26-05
.
Anne M. Trumbla,
Complainant,
v.
Alphonso Jackson,
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A53275
Agency No. FW 04 22
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely
EEO Counselor contact.<1> In her complaint, complainant alleged that
she was subjected to discrimination on the bases of sex (female) and age
(D.O.B. 12/10/42) when:
On May 26, 2004, the Deputy Director/Acting Director, made derogatory
and demeaning remarks to her;
On August 2, 2004, she learned that there was factual evidence of
an ongoing sexual relationship between the Deputy Director/Acting
Director and a coworker. Complainant contends that because of the sexual
relationship between the Deputy Director/Acting Director and the coworker
she has been denied opportunities for promotion, training, details, and
special projects. Complainant claims that the coworker's appointment to
the positions of Public Housing Management Assessment Program Coordinator
and the East Texas Litigation Coordinator are examples of the special
advantages the coworker received, and that the special advantages
ultimately led to the coworker obtaining the grade of GS-13; and
On August 5, 1995, complainant maintains that she was discriminated
against because of her age (53, at the time of the non-selection), when
she learned that she was not selected for one of the Bridge Positions of
Revitalization Specialist. Complainant contends that the coworker was
selected for one of the positions because of her sexual relationship with
the Deputy Director/Acting Director. Complainant claims that because of
her non-selection, she was denied the opportunity for training, details,
and special projects.
With respect to all three claims, the record discloses that the
alleged discriminatory events occurred at the earliest in 1994 when
complainant suspected the relationship<2> and at the latest on May
26, 2004. The record shows however, that complainant did not initiate
contact with an EEO Counselor until August 3, 2004, which is well beyond
the forty-five (45) day limitation period. On appeal, complainant has
presented no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of
the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. Accordingly, the
agency's final decision dismissing complainant's complaint is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_____07-26-05_____________
Date
1 The Commission notes that issue #1,
was dismissed by the agency pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for
failure to state a claim. Notwithstanding, the Commission finds that
this issue should have also been dismissed for untimely EEO Counselor
contact. The record reveals that the remarks were made on May 26, 2004,
but she did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until August 3,
2004, which is beyond the 45 day limitation period.
2 Complainant indicated that she suspected a relationship between the
Deputy Director/Acting Director and the coworker in 1994, and believed
that the coworker was receiving benefits as a result of the relationship.