01993900
12-15-2000
Carol Wright, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Carol Wright v. Department of the Navy
01993900
December 15, 2000
.
Carol Wright,
Complainant,
v.
Richard J. Danzig,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993900
Agency No. 99-00250-015
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated April 8, 1999, dismissing her complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. In her
complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination
on the basis of sex (female) when:
Complainant was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment beginning in
January 1994, which did not end until she voluntarily terminated her
position on January 31, 1997.
The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to the regulation
set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO Counselor
contact. Specifically, the agency stated that complainant did not
initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until January 12, 1999, which
was beyond the applicable forty-five (45) day limitation period.
On appeal, complainant, through her attorney, argues that she spoke to
the Deputy EEO Officer on several occasions beginning in December 1995.
Complainant stated that as a result of these meetings she believed that
she filed an EEO complaint. In addition, complainant states that during
the meetings with the EEO Officer, she was never advised that the meetings
did not constitute complaints nor was she advised of her EEO rights.
In response to complainant's appeal, the agency stated that complainant
contacted the EEO Officer, on or about January 26, 1996, at which
time complainant alleged that she was being harassed by her manager
(Person A). The agency stated that although complainant was advised of
the administrative EEO process she did not initiate informal counseling
nor did she indicate an intent to file a formal EEO complaint.
The record shows that as a result of complainant's conversations with
the EEO Officer in January 1996, management for complainant's Department
(Person B and Person C), met with complainant, complainant's co-worker,
and complainant's immediate supervisor (S1). Based on the meeting,
management directed S2 to have no further direct contact with complainant,
and to report any additional concerns to Person B's attention. According
to S1, the situation improved and he was not aware if complainant ever
reported any further concerns to management. The agency stated that
it was not until three years later, and two years after complainant's
voluntary resignation, that complainant contacted the EEO Officer, in
a letter dated January 12, 1999, to follow up on her �sexual harassment
complaints on the following dates: 12/12/95; 1/26/96; and 3/7/96."
The Commission has held that in order to establish EEO Counselor contact,
an individual must contact an agency official logically connected
to the EEO process and exhibit an intent to begin the EEO process.
Allen v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950933 (July
9, 1996). We note that complainant did contact the Deputy EEO Officer
in December 1995/January 1996, however, there is no indication that
complainant exhibited an intent to begin the EEO process at that time.
The record reveals that after meeting with the Deputy EEO Officer,
complainant pursued the matter through management. Specifically,
complainant and a co-worker met with Person B and Person C on January
26, 1996, and raised their joint concerns regarding the alleged hostile
behavior of Person A. The record indicates no further contact between
complainant and the EEO Office until January 12, 1999, two years after
complainant left the agency. Thus, we find no justification for extending
the time limit for initiating counselor contact.
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss complainant's complaint
was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
December 15, 2000
__________________
Date