Donald Dudley Complainant,v.Ann W. Brown, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 26, 2001
01992267 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 26, 2001)

01992267

02-26-2001

Donald Dudley Complainant, v. Ann W. Brown, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Agency.


Donald Dudley v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

01992267

February 26, 2001

.

Donald Dudley

Complainant,

v.

Ann W. Brown,

Chairman,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01992267

DECISION

Complainant claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of

his race (Black) when:

Management bypassed Black males who were equally qualified or more

qualified than the individual selected for the Investigator/Compliance

Officer, GS-12 position in the Atlanta Office.

The individual selected for the Investigator/Compliance Officer position

has been afforded favorable treatment throughout his tenure with the

Atlanta Office.

Over the past nine years, the Chicago Office has not selected any Blacks

for twelve investigator positions that were filled by applicants from

outside the agency.

4. Complainant was not selected for a Compliance Officer, GS-12

position in Indianapolis in July 1997. A White female from outside

the agency was selected.

5. The Chicago Office has continuously denied Black males employment

opportunities in the professional ranks throughout the 25 year history

of that Office.

The record reveals that complainant filed a grievance on August 13, 1998,

pursuant to the agency's collective bargaining agreement. The grievance

addressed the agency's decision that deemed him ineligible for the

Investigator/Compliance Officer, GS-12 position in the Atlanta Office.

Complainant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on August 27, 1998,

and filed the instant complaint on October 9, 1998. Complainant withdrew

his grievance on September 9, 1998. The agency dismissed the first claim

on the grounds that complainant elected to pursue the matter through

the negotiated grievance process. We find that claim (1) was properly

dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(4). The grievance and claim

(1) in the instant complaint both refer to complainant's nonselection

for the Investigator/Compliance Officer, GS-12 position in the Atlanta

Office. The agency's collective bargaining agreement permits claims

of discrimination to be raised via the negotiated grievance procedure.

Although complainant withdrew his grievance on September 9, 1998, the

withdrawal of his grievance does not negate his prior election of the

negotiated grievance procedure. Marsh v. Department of the Treasury,

EEOC Request No. 05910393 (August 8, 1991). Accordingly, the agency's

dismissal of claim (1) was proper.

Upon review, we find that claims (2), (3), and (5) of the instant

complaint were properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(1),

on the grounds of failure to state a claim. These claims do not show

how complainant was personally aggrieved. Claims (3), (4), and (5)

were also properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2)

on the grounds that complainant failed to contact an EEO Counselor

in a timely manner. Complainant failed to establish that a specific

incident occurred within 45 days of his contact with an EEO Counselor.

With regard to claim (4), complainant claimed that he was not selected for

a Compliance Investigator, GS-12 position in Indianapolis in July 1997;

however, complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until

August 27, 1998, after the expiration of the 45-day limitation period.

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing the complaint was proper

and is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

February 26, 2001

__________________

Date