01993341
04-20-2000
Cheryl Y. Courts, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.
)
Cheryl Y. Courts, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01993341
) Agency No. 1D251001199
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(1)), and 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and
hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)).<1> Complainant
alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases of race (Black)
and sex (female) when:
on November 4, 1998, she was harassed and humiliated when her supervisor
(RMO) shouted in a loud voice for her to �get out, go home;�
on November 4, 1998, when she requested to see a union steward, RMO
threatened to call the state police to evict her from the building and
shouted in her face;
in May 1998, RMO made derogatory remarks about her being on Family
Medical Leave;
on November 18, 1998, she was denied the right to clock-in because
there was no light duty slot for her;
on August 1, 1998, RMO retaliated against her for using Family Medical
Leave when he took her out of the normal days off rotation; and
in May 1998, she was not informed about what procedures to follow in
order to get a light duty slot.
Issue #1, #2 and #4
We find that issues #1, #2, and #4 were appropriately dismissed for
failure to state a claim because the complainant failed to demonstrate
that she is aggrieved within the meaning of our regulations. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(1)) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a
complaint that fails to state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint
from any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes
that he or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition.
29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case
precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a
present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of
employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air
Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
We have considered the complainant's suggestion that she was harshly,
verbally abused by RMO. However, the Commission has repeatedly found
that remarks or comments unaccompanied by a concrete agency action are
not a direct and personal deprivation sufficient to render an individual
aggrieved for the purposes of Title VII. See Backo v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960227 (June 10, 1996); Henry v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940695 (February 9, 1995).
Issue #3, #5, and #6
We find that issues #3, #5, and #6 were appropriately dismissed
for failure to timely initiate counselor contact. In so finding,
we note that 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 (45) days of
the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of
a personnel action, within forty-five (45) 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 (45) 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.
EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that she was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence she was prevented by
circumstances beyond her control from contacting the Counselor within the
time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or
the Commission. The record reveals that complainant first had counselor
contact on November 18, 1998 but the incidents of alleged discriminatory
activity took place between May and August 1998. Since more that 45
days passed between the date of the alleged discriminatory conduct and
the counselor contact and since no persuasive arguments or evidence have
been presented that would justify an extension of time. We find that
the agency appropriately dismissed #3, #5, and #6.
Accordingly, the agency's final 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:
April 20, 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.