Carolyn J. Tagliente, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 3, 2000
01a02700 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2000)

01a02700

08-03-2000

Carolyn J. Tagliente, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Carolyn J. Tagliente, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A02700

) Agency No. 4B-120-0009-00

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On February 14, 2000, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from an agency decision pertaining to her complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> The

agency characterized her complaint as alleging that she was subjected to

discrimination on the basis of sex when, during the week of August 16,

1999, her request for advanced sick leave was denied.

Pursuant to EEOC Regulations, the agency dismissed complainant's complaint

for untimely EEO Counselor contact. Specifically, the agency found

that complainant's October 18, 1999 EEO Counselor contact was more than

forty-five days beyond the August 16, 1999 date she was notified her

request for advanced sick leave was denied, and was therefore untimely.

In an appeal letter dated February 7, 2000, complainant asserts that she

received the denial of her request for advanced sick leave on August 23,

1999, and, after her request for reconsideration was not answered, she

contacted an EEO Counselor on October 5, 1999. In a second submission

dated April 7, 2000, however, complainant states that she contacted an

EEO Counselor on October 18, 1999. The second submission also asserted

that, as she continued to receive her full pay check, complainant did

not realize until she received a pay stub on September 17, 1999 that

the agency was deducting her annual leave and that her request for

reconsideration had not been approved.

In response to complainant's initial submission, the agency asserts

that the EEO Counselor's report indicates that complainant received

notification of the denial of her request during the week of August 16,

1999, and that she contacted the EEO Counselor on October 18, 1999.

We note that the EEO Counselor's report also states that, when asked

why she waited until October 18, 1999 to contact the EEO office when

she knew in August that her request was denied, complainant responded

that �she attempted to work the situation out on her own.�

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

of discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Counselor within forty-five days of the date of

the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel

action, within forty-five 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 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.

Upon review of the record, we find that the agency has properly dismissed

complainant's complaint. Although the exact date complainant received

notification her advanced sick leave was denied is unclear, complainant

herself asserts that she received notice no later than August 23, 1999.

In spite of her claim that she did not know until September 17, 1999 that

her request for reconsideration had not been approved, the record shows

that complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination on the

date she first became aware that her advanced leave request was denied.

It is also clear from the record that, despite initially stating on appeal

that she contacted the EEO Counselor on October 5, 1999, complainant's

initial EEO Counselor contact was made on October 18, 1999. Therefore,

as complainant's October 18, 1999 initial EEO counselor contact occurred

more than forty-five days after the August 23, 1999 date she should

have reasonably suspected discrimination, it was clearly untimely.

Consequently, we find that the agency properly dismissed complainant�s

complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact.

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing complainant's complaint

is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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); 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 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

August 3, 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.