Kent C. Chen, Appellant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 14, 1999
01990982 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 1999)

01990982

09-14-1999

Kent C. Chen, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Kent C. Chen v. Department of the Navy

01990982

September 14, 1999

Kent C. Chen, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01990982

) Agency No. DON-98-60530-010

Richard J. Danzig, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

In a formal complaint, dated June 18, 1998, appellant alleged that he was

subjected to unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. on

the bases of race (Asian) and in reprisal for prior EEO contact when:

On April 20, 1998, a coworker refused to install the updated 1998 Pulsar

Software on appellant's computer without permission from appellant's

Division Head; appellant's Division Head agreed to allow appellant to

install the software under the condition that someone watch appellant

install it;

On April 24, 1998, a coworker intentionally issued appellant sketches

that were rotated 180 degrees and upside-down for the purpose of making

appellant's job more difficult, and management tolerated the coworker's

behavior;

The Department Head transferred a coworker, but disapproved appellant's

requests for transfer in 1991, 1992, and 1993; and

The Department Head identified appellant's position for abolishment

in a Reduction-In-Force (RIF) effective July 31, 1996, instead of

transferring appellant into another branch.

On September 15, 1998, the agency issued a final agency decision (FAD)

accepting allegations (1) and (2), but dismissing allegations (3) and

(4) pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(b), for untimely

counselor contact. Specifically, the agency noted that appellant

initially contacted a counselor on April 24, 1998, more than forty-five

days after allegations (3) and (4) occurred.

By electronic message dated September 24, 1998, appellant disagreed with

the agency's dismissal of allegations (3) and (4) arguing that he had

no suspicion of discrimination until April 20, 1998, when he learned

that non-Asians were having their transfer requests granted.

By letter dated October 28, 1998, the agency refused to accept allegations

(3) or (4). The agency enclosed appeal rights to the Commission, and

explained that appellant had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination by

October 15, 1997, when he mentioned his failure to receive transfers to

support other pending EEO complaints, Agency Numbers DON-95-60530-013

and DON-97-60530-004. On November 15, 1998, appellant filed a timely

appeal with this Commission from the agency's October 28, 1998 decision.

On appeal, appellant argues that although he mentioned the agency's

denial of his transfer requests in other complaints, he did not know the

reason his transfers were denied at that time. Appellant also alleges

that allegation (4) was the subject of a prior, improperly processed

EEO complaint.

In response, the agency notes that although appellant claims he had

no comparatives regarding the transfer of co-workers until April 1998,

appellant mentions the transfers of several co-workers, and questions why

he was not transferred, in a letter to an EEOC Administrative Judge dated

October 17, 1998. The agency also notes that if, as appellant contends

on appeal, allegation (4) was the subject of a prior complaint, it should

be dismissed pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for

stating the same claim pending or decided by the agency or Commission.

The record contains a copy of the Counselor's Report, dated June 30,

1998, which states that appellant initially contacted a counselor on

April 24, 1998. The record also includes a copy of appellant's October

16, 1997 letter to an AJ, in response to an agency motion for summary

judgment in Agency Numbers DON-95-60530-013 and DON-97-60530-004.

Therein, appellant contends that several co-workers received transfers,

and argues, inter alia, that he was retaliated against several times

when management refused to transfer him.

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 Ball v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880247 (July 6, 1988). Thus,

the limitations period 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.

The Commission finds that appellant had a reasonable suspicion of

discrimination regarding allegations (3) and(4) by October 15,1997.

Further, appellant's initial EEO Counselor contact occurred on April 24,

1998, and appellant failed to provide sufficient reason to justify an

extension of the 45-day time limitation.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision is 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. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

Sept. 14, 1999

__________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations