Debra A. Seymour, Appellant,v.Larry H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 13, 1999
01987039 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 13, 1999)

01987039

09-13-1999

Debra A. Seymour, Appellant, v. Larry H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Debra A. Seymour v. Department of the Treasury

01987039

September 13, 1999

Debra A. Seymour, )

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Appeal No. 01987039

Larry H. Summers, ) Agency No. 98-2218

Secretary, )

Department of the Treasury, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On September 28, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD), dated August 27, 1998,

dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to timely file the complaint.

The Commission accepts appellant's appeal in accordance with EEOC Order

No. 960, as amended.

The record shows that appellant received the Notice of Right to File a

Complaint on April 16, 1998. She did not file a complaint until June 6,

1998, well beyond the fifteen (15) day time limit. In a letter dated

May 18, 1998, which appears to have been submitted with her complaint,

appellant presents several "unforeseen circumstances" that prevented her

from timely filing. Appellant points to problems with her son's school,

car troubles, and "aches and pains" as reasons for her delay.

In the FAD, the agency properly considered whether appellant's reasons for

late filing warranted an extension of the filing period, and concluded

it did not. Specifically, the agency determined that appellant was not

so incapacitated that she was unable to take care of day-to-day matters.

The agency stated that appellant's failure to timely file her complaint

was "based on her own decision" and "not due to circumstances beyond

her control."

On appeal, appellant's attorney argues that the agency failed to comply

with 29 C.F.R. 1614.605(d) when it neglected to serve him the Notice of

Right to File. Instead the agency served the notice on the appellant

directly. Therefore, appellant's complaint should be considered timely.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106(b) requires the filing of a

written complaint with an appropriate agency official within fifteen

(15) calendar days after the date of receipt of the notice of the right

to file a complaint required by 29 C.F.R. � 1614. 105(d), (e), or (f).

This time limit is subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. See

29 C.F.R. � 1614.604.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614. 605(d) provides that when a complaint

designates an attorney as representative, service of documents and

decisions on the complainant shall be made on the attorney and not on the

complainant, and time frames for receipt of materials by the complainant

shall be computed from the time of receipt by the attorney.

Based on a review of the record, we find that appellant did not inform

the agency that she was represented by an attorney until she filed her

complaint. Appellant's attorney argues that appellant designated him to

serve as her representative in a document dated January 13, 1998. This

document, however, refers to "Case Numbers 97-2250 and 98-2050 and any

other complaints that may be filed by me." We find this general language

insufficient to put the agency on notice of appellant's representation

in this case. Appellant's attorney also refers to letters sent to him

by the agency, before and after the Notice of Right to File was signed by

appellant. Again, we note that the correspondence relied upon refers to

appellant's prior cases and not the current complaint. Further, on April

2, 1998 appellant signed an "EEO Counselor Checklist" that notified her of

her right to be represented and instructed her to complete a Designation

of Representative form if she named a representative. Such a form is

absent from the record, and appellant does not contend that one was

executed for the current complaint. Therefore, we find that appellant

was not represented by an attorney during the EEO Counseling stage and

the agency was not required to send the notice to appellant's attorney.

With respect to appellant's reasons for her untimely filing, we

are not persuaded. Problems with her son's school and car troubles,

although unfortunate and time consuming, do not warrant an extension of

the filing period. Appellant also refers to physical health problems.

Where an appellant alleges that he or she was unable to meet applicable

EEO time limits because of physical or mental health problems, the

Commission has held that an extension of time is warranted "only where

an individual is so incapacitated by his condition that he is unable to

meet the regulatory time limits." See Kapp v. Department of the Navy,

EEOC Request No. 05940662 (January 23, 1995); Hemphill v. Department

of Defense (Defense Investigative Service), EEOC Request No. 05930342

(September 17, 1993). Appellant has not shown herself to be so

incapacitated.

Having reviewed the entire record, the arguments on appeal, including

those not explicitly addressed herein, and for the foregoing reasons,

the Commission hereby AFFIRMS the agency's dismissal of appellant's

complaint for untimely filing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(b).

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)

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:

September 13, 1999

__________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations