Gregory P. Anderson, Appellant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 5, 1999
01991683 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 5, 1999)

01991683

11-05-1999

Gregory P. Anderson, Appellant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Gregory P. Anderson v. Department of the Army

01991683

November 5, 1999

Gregory P. Anderson, )

Appellant, )

)

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01991683

) Agency No. AVHEFO9809I0050

)

Louis Caldera, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Army, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On December 18, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal of an October

19, 1998 final agency decision, which was received by him on November

20, 1998, dismissing two allegations in his complaint, pursuant to 29

C.F.R. ��1614.107(a) and (b), for failure to state a claim and due to

untimely EEO Counselor contact.

In its final decision, the agency identified the allegations of

appellant's September 16, 1998 complaint as whether appellant

was discriminated against when: (1) he was denied equal training

opportunities; (2) he was subjected to discriminatory remarks by his

coworker; and (3) he suffered permanent foot damage due to the agency's

failure to provide light duty (shore duty), reassignment, or retraining.

The agency accepted allegation (3) and dismissed allegation (1) for

failure to state a claim and allegation (2) due to untimely EEO Counselor

contact. With regard to allegation (1), the agency stated that appellant

did not provide any specific training which he had requested and which had

been denied by the agency. The agency indicated that it unsuccessfully

tried to obtain the specific information concerning allegation (1)

from appellant. With regard to allegation (2), the agency stated that

during EEO counseling, appellant indicated that the derogatory remarks

were made on or around September 9, 1995, but he did not contact an EEO

Counselor until July 14, 1998.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides that an agency may dismiss

a complaint which fails to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.103.

In order to establish standing initially under 29 C.F.R. �1614.103, a

complainant must be either an employee or an applicant for employment of

the agency against which the allegations of discrimination are raised.

In addition, the allegations must concern an employment policy or

practice which affects the individual in his/her capacity as an employee

or applicant for employment. The agency shall accept a complaint from any

aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he/she

has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,

religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. 29 C.F.R. ��1614.103

and .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).

In allegation (1), appellant indicated that he was denied the

opportunities for training. We note that EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. �1614.106(c) provides that complaints must be sufficiently precise

to describe generally the action(s) or practice(s) that form the basis of

the complaint. In the instant case, we find that the subject allegation

lacks this requisite specificity, as it does not identify the type

or date of the training opportunities appellant was allegedly denied.

Thus, we find that allegation (1) failed to state a claim.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of

discrimination be brought to the attention of the EEO Counselor within

45 days of the alleged discriminatory event, or the effective date of

an alleged discriminatory personnel action.

The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed

to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the limitation period

is triggered under the EEOC Regulations. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2);

Ball v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880247 (July 6,

1988). Thus, the limitations period is not triggered until a complainant

should reasonably suspect discrimination, but before all the facts that

would support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.

The record indicates that the incident raised in allegation (2)

occurred on or around September 9, 1995. Appellant contacted an EEO

Counselor regarding the matter on July 14, 1998, which was beyond

the 45-day time limit set by the regulations. On appeal, appellant

fails to present adequate justification to warrant an extension of the

applicable time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2).

Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

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. 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 (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:

November 5, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations