01981082
11-17-1998
Janet M. Doyle, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01981082
) Agency No. F-97-4963
Janet Reno, )
Attorney General, )
Department of Justice, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that appellant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a). A review of
the record reveals that appellant has not been rendered aggrieved as
the result of an agency Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
investigation in December 1996, relating to her association with her
roommate, who was convicted of credit card fraud. The OPR investigation
does not constitute a denial of some personal right or an imposition of
a burden or obligation. See Ricciardo v. Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Appeal No. 01966777 (February 5, 1998); request to reconsider denied,
EEOC Request No. 05980416 (July 17, 1998).
In addition we note that appellant alleged that the OPR investigation was
part of a pattern of practice of harassment. However, appellant has not
presented evidence sufficient to allow the Commission to determine whether
the matter raised in her complaint is part of a hostile environment.
We note that on appeal, appellant argues for the first time that she
was the recipient of a verbal reprimand due to not timely informing her
Supervisor of the activities of her roommate. The Commission, however,
has held that a verbal reprimand unaccompanied by concrete action does
not render an employee aggrieved. See Banks v. Department of Health &
Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05940481 (February 16, 1995).
Finally, we note that on appeal, appellant argues that the matters
raised in her formal complaint are part of a continuing violation.
The continuing violation doctrine is a theory used by a complainant when
at least one, but not all, of a series of allegations occurred within
the limitation period preceding the initial EEO Counselor contact.
See Rebo v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05900290
(May 10, 1990). The continuing violation theory is not, however,
relevant to the Commission's affirmance of the agency's decision to
dismiss appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. See Meros
v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Request No. 05930760 (September 23, 1993).
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint for
failure to state a claim was proper and is affirmed.<1>
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 17, 1998
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 Because we affirm the agency's decision to dismiss appellant's complaint
for the reason stated herein, we find it unnecessary to address the
agency's decision to dismiss her complaint on alternative grounds.