Marvin R. Larson, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 14, 1999
01991365 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 14, 1999)

01991365

10-14-1999

Marvin R. Larson, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Marvin R. Larson v. United States Postal Service

01991365

October 14, 1999

Marvin R. Larson, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01991365

v. ) Agency No. 4-E-913-0137-98

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision (FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The appeal is accepted in

accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001, as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed appellant's

complaint for untimely contact with an EEO Counselor and for failure to

state a claim.

BACKGROUND

Appellant filed a formal complaint on September 28, 1998, alleging

discrimination on the basis of sex (male) when he was (1) denied an award

on March 3, 1998 and (2) harassed by his supervisor when she made the

comment that appellant was on his "PMS" on or about July 15 or 16, 1998.

In its FAD dated October 23, 1998, the agency dismissed the complaint

finding that appellant failed to contact an EEO Counselor in a timely

manner with respect to allegation (1) and failed to state a claim with

respect to allegation (2). This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Allegation (1)

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(b) states that the agency shall

dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply

with the applicable time limits contained in �1614.105, �1614.106 and

�1614.204(c), unless the agency extends the time limits in accordance

with �1614.604(c).

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved

person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of

the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of

a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2) allows the agency or the

Commission to extend the time limit if the appellant can establish that

appellant was not aware of the time limit, that appellant did not know

and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter

or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence appellant was

prevented by circumstances beyond (his or her) control from contacting

the EEO Counselor within the time limit, or for other reasons considered

sufficient by the agency or Commission.

The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard, as opposed

to a "supportive facts" standard, to determine when the limitation period

is triggered. See Ball v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05880247 (July 6, 1988) (interpreting 29 C.F.R. �1613.214(a)(1)(i)

- the predecessor of 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1)).

In the case at hand, appellant contacted an EEO Counselor on July 20,

1998. In his pre-counseling complaint, appellant alleged that he was

discriminated on March 3, 1998, when he was denied an award. On his

formal complaint dated September 28, 1998, appellant alleges that during

March 1998, he was denied an award by the interim acting postmaster

and was the only person recommended for an award who was denied it at

that time. Further, the EEO Counselor's report dated September 11,

1998, states that the date of the incident is March 3, 1998, and notes

that appellant may have raised this issue in an untimely manner. Then,

on September 28, 1998, appellant's representative writes to the agency

to correct the date of the denial of an award from March 1998 to late

June or July 1998. The request for the change in date was made without

explanation. Therefore, upon review of the record, we find that the date

of the incident was March 3, 1998, and that appellant contacted the EEO

Counselor on July 20, 1998. Accordingly, the Commission finds that this

portion of appellant's complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(b).

Allegation (2)

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides for the dismissal of

a complaint or portion thereof which fails to state a claim within the

meaning of 29 C.F.R. �1614.103. An agency shall accept a complaint from

any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he

or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race,

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disabling condition.

29 C.F.R. �1614.103; �1614.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case

precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers

a present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege

of employment for which there is a remedy. Riden v. Department of the

Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970314 (October 2, 1998).

In appellant's complaint, he asserts that the incident cited constitutes

harassment. In order to constitute a violation of Title VII, the

conduct must be "so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of

the victim's employment." See Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer

Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors, EEOC Notice No.915.002

(June 18, 1999) (citing Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118

S. Ct. 998, 1002 (1998)). Upon review of appellant's complaint, we find

that this single incident which occurred on or about July 15 or 16, 1998,

is not sufficient to rise to the level to state a claim of harassment.

Therefore, we dismiss appellant's allegation (2) for failure to state

a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the agency 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 (R0993)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court. 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:

Oct. 14, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations