Kenneth R. Smith, Complainant,v.Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 24, 2009
0120090910 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 24, 2009)

0120090910

03-24-2009

Kenneth R. Smith, Complainant, v. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.


Kenneth R. Smith,

Complainant,

v.

Michael D. Griffin,

Administrator,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120090910

Agency No. NCN08MSFCA035MC

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated July 24, 2008, dismissing his 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

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

In a formal EEO complaint, complainant, a former agency employee,

alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race

(African-American), sex (male), age (61), and reprisal for prior protected

EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when:

(1) on September 20, 2007, he was issued an unsatisfactory performance

evaluation on his 60-day performance improvement plan (PIP) and was told

he failed to meet the requirements of the PIP; (2) on September 20, 2007,

he was issued a notice of adverse action and escorted off the premises

and denied access to his computer; and (3) on October 23, 2007, he was

terminated from his position. In a final decision dated July 24, 2008,

the agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2),

due to the untimely filing of the formal complaint.

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) states, in

pertinent part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint which fails to

comply with the applicable time limits contained in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106,

which, in turn, requires the filing of a formal complaint within fifteen

(15) days of receiving the notice of the right to do so.

The record discloses that, following EEO counseling on these matters,

the agency twice sent complainant the notice of right to file a formal

complaint, which informed him that he had to file a formal complaint

within fifteen days of receipt of the notice. On December 12, 2007,

the agency sent the notice by regular mail and by certified mail to

complainant's address of record. The certified letter was not picked

up and was returned to the agency after three delivery attempts by the

postal service. However, the notice sent by regular mail was not returned

as undeliverable. The EEO counselor contacted complainant by telephone and

informed him that the notice would be resent. On January 10, 2008, the

agency resent the notice by regular mail and certified mail. The notice

was accompanied by a letter from the EEO counselor indicating that the

agency would presume that the notice was received by complainant within

five calendar days from its postmark. Again, the certified letter was

returned to the agency after three delivery attempts and the regular

mail was not. Complainant filed his formal complaint on May 9, 2008.

On appeal, complainant has not explained the delay.

Actual receipt of a document is generally necessary to commence the

running of a regulatory time limit. However, a regulatory time limit

may run where due diligence is used to deliver appropriate rights to

a complainant but the effort is unsuccessful. See Woehr v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960657 (July 3, 1997). Given

the agency's efforts in the instant matter to deliver the notice by

certified mail, and the fact that the agency contacted complainant by

telephone and the two notices sent alternatively by regular mail were not

returned, the Commission finds that the agency exercised due diligence in

sending the notice to complainant. Moreover, the letter accompanying the

notice indicated a five-day receipt presumption. Although the notice

stated that complainant had to file a formal complaint within fifteen

(15) calendar days of its receipt, complainant did not file his formal

complaint until May 9, 2008, which is well beyond the limitation period.

On appeal, complainant has not offered adequate justification to warrant

an extension of the time limit for filing the complaint.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's

complaint is affirmed.1

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

March 24, 2009

__________________

Date

1 The agency's decision gave complainant appeal rights to the Merit

Systems Protection Board because it involved a termination. The MSPB

noted that complainant had the right to appeal the dismissal to the

Commission, and as such found that complainant's appeal to the MSPB was

not ripe for adjudication. The matter was dismissed without prejudice

pending the instant appeal.

??

??

??

??

2

0120090910

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120090910