05990476
03-15-2000
Lawrence Brinkley, Complainant, Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy. Agency.
Lawrence Brinkley v. Department of the Navy
05990476
March 15, 2000
Lawrence Brinkley, )
Complainant, )
) Request No. 05990476
) Appeal No. 01986367
) Agency No. 9800604002
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy. )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 16, 1999, Lawrence Brinkley (complainant) initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider
the decision in Brinkley v. Dept. of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01986367
(February 24, 1999). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commissioners may,
in their discretion, reconsider any previous decision where the party
demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have
a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of the
agency. 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b).<1> Complainant's request is denied.
Complainant contacted an EEO counselor in February 1998, alleging
discrimination based on disability when he was removed from his position
in February 1990 and when the agency did not inform him that he had to
apply for medical retirement benefits within a year of his removal. The
agency dismissed the complaint for failure to contact the EEO counselor in
a timely manner and complainant appealed to the Commission. The previous
decision affirmed the agency's dismissal without substantive comment. In
his request for reconsideration, complainant continues to complain that
he was involuntarily separated and was not compensated for his disability.
The Commission notes that complainant contacted the EEO counselor nearly
eight years after he was removed from his position. The Commission has
held that complainants must act with due diligence in the pursuit of
their claims or the doctrine of laches may be applied. The doctrine
of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual's failure
to diligently pursue his actions could bar his claim. See O'Dell
v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, EEOC request No. 05901130
(December 27, 1990), Walker v. Dept. of the Treasury, EEOC Request
No. 05960679 (December 12, 1997). In this case we find the doctrine
of laches applicable. Specifically, we find that because complainant
waited nearly eight years to bring his claims to the agency's attention,
he failed to act with due diligence. The previous decision is affirmed.
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds complainant's
request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny complainant's request. The
decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01986367 remains the Commission's final
decision in this matter. There is no further right of administrative
appeal from a decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
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:
March 15, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
____________________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.