05980593
07-12-2000
Annie M. Martin, Complainant, William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.
Annie M. Martin v. Defense Logistics Agency
05980593
July 12, 2000
Annie M. Martin, )
Complainant, ) Request No. 05980593
) Appeal No. 01982132
) Agency No. CA-95-003
William S. Cohen, )
Secretary, )
Department of Defense, )
(Defense Logistics Agency), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Annie
M. Martin v. Defense Logistics Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 01982132 (March
11, 1998).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the
requesting party demonstrates 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. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b)).
In her request for reconsideration, complainant states that due to
improper counseling by the agency her formal complaint of discrimination
should be accepted as timely. A review of the record reveals that
complainant initially contacted an EEO Counselor in March 1992; however,
no formal complaint was filed in connection with the March 1992 counselor
contact. Two years later, in October 1994, complainant again contacted an
EEO Counselor and this time she filed a formal complaint dated December
14, 1994. The agency dismissed the December 14, 1994 formal complaint
on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact and the Commission
affirmed the agency's dismissal.
In an attachment to her formal complaint, complainant stated that she
initially approached the EEO Office in March 1992, with the intent of
filing a complaint but was informed at this time that �if [she] had sought
help through the Union grievance process [she] could not file an EEO
complaint.� Complainant argues that due to the agency's misinformation
about her election rights, March 1992, should be the date used to
determine the timeliness of her complaint and she claims that under a
continuing violation theory her complaint would be considered timely.
Based upon a review of the record, we find that the EEO Counselor's
statement that complainant may not pursue a discrimination complaint
through both the negotiated grievance procedure and through the EEO
process was not misleading. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.301(a). Furthermore,
complainant failed to explain why she waited until October 1994, two
years later, to again initiate contact with an EEO Counselor and pursue
her discrimination complaint. Thus, we find that the agency properly
dismissed complainant's complaint as untimely.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01982132 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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:
July 12, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.