0120060503
11-15-2006
Encarnado S. Facundo,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Donald C. Winter,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200605031
Agency No. DON 05-61581-01602
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final agency
decision, dated September 8, 2005, dismissing his formal 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. The Commission accepts the
appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
On May 9, 2005, complainant initiated contact with an agency the EEO
office regarding claims of discrimination. Informal efforts to resolve
complainant's concerns were unsuccessful. On or about August 16, 1985,
complainant filed the instant formal complaint.
On September 8, 2005, the agency issued a final decision. Therein,
the agency determined that complainant's complaint was comprised of the
following claim:
On February 1, 1985, management at Subic Bay Naval Base, Republic of the
Philippines, failed to authorize complainant's claim for a disability
retirement annuity.
The agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO
Counselor contact. The agency determined that complainant contacted
the EEO office on May 9, 2005, but retired from the shipyard in February
1, 1985. Moreover, the agency noted that the facility where complainant
had been employed was closed in November 1993.
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 he was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented
by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
Here, the record indicates that complainant contacted the EEO office in
2005, regarding his separation in February 1985. Complainant contact is
approximately twenty years after the allegedly discriminatory event, well
beyond the time limitation. Moreover, the Commission has consistently
held that a complainant must act with due diligence in the pursuit of his
claim or the doctrine of laches may apply. See O'Dell v. Department of
Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05901130 (December 27, 1990).
The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual's
failure to pursue diligently a course of action could bar his claim.
Complainant has failed to provide sufficient justification for extending
or tolling the time limit. Therefore, the agency's decision to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) was proper.
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact is AFFIRMED.
Because we affirm the dismissal for the reason stated above, we will
not address alternative dismissal grounds.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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
November 15, 2006
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been re-designated with the
above referenced appeal number.
??
??
??
??
2
0120060503
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120060503