Chau O.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 12, 2016
0120160066 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 12, 2016)

0120160066

01-12-2016

Chau O.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Chau O.,1

Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Great Lakes Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120160066

Agency No. 1J-607-0049-15

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the Agency's decision dated August 19, 2015, 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency's International Military Service Center facility in Chicago, Illinois.

On April 22, 2015, Complainant contacted the EEO Counselor alleging discrimination. Complainant indicated that she was issued a Notice of Removal dated October 6, 2014. On her pre-complaint form, Complainant indicated that she tried resolve her grievance through the Union but was told that they could not help in getting her job back. She determined that the Union was not working with her but against her. She felt that the Agency did not follow proper procedures.

When the matter could not be resolved informally, on August 3, 2015, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of color and disability when she was issued the Notice of Removal. In an attachment to her formal complaint, Complainant asserted that she because aware that other employees were given preferential treatment sometime in April 2015. She asked that she be made whole, reinstated in her position, and provided missed holiday and overtime pay.

The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2). The Agency noted that Complainant was issued the Notice of Removal on October 6, 2014, and that the Union did not help her. She later learned of comparator employees that had bad attendance but were not removed. The Agency found that the Notice of Removal was a discrete act which occurred on a specific date. The Agency concluded that Complainant contacted the EEO Office well beyond 45 calendar days and dismissed the matter accordingly.

This appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant submitted the same explanation she provided the EEO Office. The Agency asked that we affirm its decision dismissing the matter.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2) states that the Agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in �1614.105, �1614.106 and �1614.204(c), unless the Agency extends the time limits in accordance with �1614.604(c).

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2) allows the Agency or the Commission to extend the time limit if the Complainant can establish that Complainant was not aware of the time limit, that Complainant did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence Complainant was prevented by circumstances beyond her control from contacting the EEO Counselor within the time limit, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the Agency or Commission.

Upon review of the record, we find that Complainant was aware of the discrete event in October 2014. She indicated that she contacted the Union in order to address the Notice of Removal. When the Union failed to assist her, she contacted the EEO office. Based on the record, Complainant was aware, at the time of the Notice of Removal, of the personnel action but failed to contact the EEO Office within 45 calendar days. Therefore, we find that the Agency's dismissal of the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2) was appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0815)

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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)

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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

January 12, 2016

__________________

Date

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120160066

2

0120160066