01A31135_r
12-02-2003
Mahadeo Raghunandan, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mahadeo Raghunandan v. United States Postal Service
01A31135
December 2, 2003
.
Mahadeo Raghunandan,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A31135
Agency No. 4A-070-0015-01
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
decision dated October 31, 2002, 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 his complaint, complainant alleged that he was
subjected to discrimination on the bases of national origin and age when:
As of February 2001, complainant had not been fully reimbursed for monies
inappropriately deducted from his wages after complainant received a
Letter of Demand (LOD).
The agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2),
for untimely EEO Counselor contact, and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(5), for being moot. In its decision, the agency determined
that the alleged discriminatory event occurred July 7, 2000, when
complainant received the Letter of Demand. Complainant's April 6,
2001 EEO contact was therefore 224 days beyond the 45-day time limit
and was therefore untimely. The agency further found that complainant
received a payment for reimbursement on March 7, 2001, in the amount of
$180.66, which fulfilled the agency's obligations under a September 11,
2000 settlement agreement involving similarly situated letter carriers,
achieved through the agency's Carriers Dispute Resolution Team (CDRT).
Complainant's claim, the agency found, was therefore also moot.
On appeal, complainant states while he was issued a reimbursement, he has
not been reimbursed for the full amount due him. Complainant further
states that he waited a reasonable amount of time (before initiating
EEO counseling) because he was told he was receiving partial payments.
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 Howard v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time limitation
is not triggered until a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination,
but before all the facts that support a charge of discrimination have
become apparent.
The record reveals that on June 7, 2000, complainant was notified that
he had received a lump sum payment of $541.88, which he was not eligible
to receive. This notice advised complainant that this money would be
recovered from him through the debt collection process. While the record
is not entirely clear as to what happened next, we conclude that the lump
sum was recovered from complainant. We further surmise from references
in the record, that other employees received similar notices and were
subject to similar collection actions. We find complainant should have
reasonably suspected discrimination when he received the agency's letter
of demand on June 7, 2000. We find that complainant's EEO contact on
April 6, 2001 is untimely. Accordingly the agency's dismissal of the
complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) is proper.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's dismissal of the complaint.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)
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 (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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
December 2, 2003
__________________
Date