Carolynv.Tibbs, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 12, 2000
01996821 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 12, 2000)

01996821

04-12-2000

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


Carolyn V. Tibbs, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01996821

) Agency No. 1-R-1005-90

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DISMISSAL

Complainant filed a complaint dated October 20, 1989, alleging she

was discriminated against on the bases of race and disability and in

retaliation for prior protected activity when she was harassed.<1> The

agency issued a decision dated April 2, 1990, dismissing complainant's

October 20, 1989 complaint for failure to prosecute and for failure to

fall within the purview of EEOC Regulations. The April 2, 1990 decision

provided appeal rights to the Commission.

On July 9, 1999 complainant requested EEO counseling. The agency issued a

decision dated August 25, 1999 stating that after a telephone conversation

between complainant and an EEO Counselor/Investigator, complainant agreed

that the following issues were being raised in complainant's July 9,

1999 request for EEO counseling:

Complainant was subjected to coworker harassment during her former

employment at the Rochester, New York Post Office during the period of

1981 - 1989.

Complainant did not receive her appeal rights concerning Complaint

No. 1-R-1005-90.

In the August 25, 1999 decision the agency found that claim 1 was

the subject of Complaint No. 1-R-1005-90 and that claim 2 involves a

claim of improper processing of a prior complaint. In the August 25,

1999 decision, the agency referred to correspondence from complainant

dated July 13, 1999, in which she provided the circumstances concerning

her mental condition at the time of the issuance of the April 2,

1990 decision. The agency found that complainant's July 13, 1999

correspondence was an attempt to reopen the October 20, 1989 complaint.

The agency stated that it would not process the July 9, 1999 request for

EEO counseling as a separate actionable complaint. The agency found that

it mailed the April 2, 1990 decision to complainant's address of record

in two mailings, but that both were returned as �Moved Left No Address,

Unable to Forward.� The agency found that complainant did not provide

independent evidence showing that her mental condition at the time was

such that she did not have the capacity to appeal to the EEOC. The agency

concluded that complainant failed to act with due diligence by waiting

eight years after the issuance of the April 2, 1990 decision to contact

the EEO Complaints processing Office. The agency denied complainant's

request to reopen her October 20, 1989 complaint. The agency provided

appeal rights to the Commission in the August 25, 1999 decision.

After reviewing the entire record the Commission finds that complainant

is ultimately now attempting to file an appeal from the agency's April

2, 1990 decision dismissing complainant's October 20, 1989 complaint.

Complainant claims that she did not have the mental capacity to file

an appeal at the time of the prior decision. Complainant also states

that she was �homeless� and that she does not remember receiving the

agency's final decision. The Commission finds that appellant failed to

file the instant appeal within the current 30 day time limit for filing

an appeal set forth in 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37659 (to be codified as

29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)) (the Commission notes that the time limit for

filing an appeal is now longer than it was in 1990). Complainant has

not shown that the agency failed to mail the April 2, 1990 decision

to the correct address. The earliest date that the record indicates

that complainant may have started making inquiries about the instant

matter is March 30, 1998. Thus, even using the date most favorable to

complainant, we find that complainant waited approximately eight years

after the issuance of the April 2, 1990 decision to pursue the matter.

The Commission finds that complainant failed to act with due diligence in

her pursuit of the instant matter. Therefore, we find that complainant's

appeal of the agency's decision dated April 2, 1990 is barred by the

doctrine of laches. See Brinkley v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request

No. 05990476 (Mar. 15, 2000).

Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to the regulation

set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37659 (to be codified as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.403(c)).

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).

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:

April 12, 2000

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.