0120072049
01-22-2009
Mary Lou Krasky, Complainant, v. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
Mary Lou Krasky,
Complainant,
v.
Mary E. Peters,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072049
Agency No. 2006-20824-FAA-06
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
final decision dated February 6, 2007, dismissing her 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
On September 26, 2006, complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact.
Informal efforts to resolve her concerns were unsuccessful. Subsequently,
complainant filed the instant formal complaint on November 6, 2006.
Therein, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination
on the bases of race, disability and sexual orientation1 when:
her selection for an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCT) position in
Minneapolis (Vacancy Announcement No. AGL-AT-04-71-73466) was rescinded
by the agency.
Complainant further alleged that on September 30, 2004, she was selected
for the position of ATCT in Minneapolis. Complainant alleged that her
supervisor (S1) and the selecting official agreed upon a release date
of January 2006 via email correspondence; and S1 shared the results of
this discussion with her. Complainant stated that in February 2005,
the agency announced a policy that all bids were to be cancelled due
to a large number of displaced employees. The record reflects that
the exception of the cancellation policy included all employees who
received a written offer of employment. Complainant stated that since
she did not receive a written offer, she assumed her bid was cancelled.
The record reflects that while complainant did not provide a specific
date of alleged discriminatory event, complainant stated that after being
made aware of the agency's decision to cancel the bids in February 2005,
she contacted both S1 and the manager of the Minneapolis Tower (M1),
who confirmed her anticipated transfer to Minneapolis in January 2006.
However, complainant stated that it was not until September 11,
2006, when she became aware of the "email exchange" between S1 and M1.
Specifically, complainant stated that she attended a deposition on behalf
of the agency on September 11, 2006, wherein she became aware of the
"email exchange" between the facilities in September 2004 confirming
an offer of employment and negotiated release date which she believes
constituted an official offer of employment by the selecting official.
Furthermore, complainant stated that she believed she was denied an
employment opportunity, and that she was intentionally not made aware
of the "email exchange" for discriminatory reasons.
In its February 6, 2007 final decision, the agency dismissed the instant
formal complaint on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2). In finding that complainant's
allegation was untimely, the agency used January 2006 as the date of the
alleged discriminatory event. Specifically, the agency determined that
complainant's September 26, 2006 EEO contact was more than forty-five
days beyond the discriminatory event, which was when her transfer did
not occur as scheduled on January 26, 2006.
On appeal, complainant argued that she had "no way to know of, and thus
no reasonable suspicion of, the misconduct of [S1] until made aware
of the existence of the 'written offer' until shown evidence of the
'written offer' when attending a deposition on the behalf of the FAA on
September 11, 2006."
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.
EEOC regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that she was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence she was prevented
by circumstances beyond her control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
The Commission notes that in her complaint, complainant stated that she
was selected for the ATCT position in Minneapolis and was advised by
S1 "that a release date from San Jose of January 2006 was established
between San Jose Tower and Minneapolis Tower...I spoke several times
with the manager of Minneapolis Tower and was told he had selected me,
that this was a 'firm' offer, and that I would still be transferring
to Minneapolis in January 2006." We note that complainant, on appeal,
argued that she did not have reasonable suspicion of unlawful employment
discrimination until September 11, 2006, when she became aware of the
existence of what she believes was a written offer of employment during
a deposition. We are not persuaded by this argument. Rather, we find
that complainant had, or should have had, a reasonable suspicion of
unlawful employment discrimination on January 26, 2006, when her transfer
did not occur as scheduled despite her prior conversations with agency
officials confirming that she had received a "firm" offer. Therefore,
we find that complainant failed to provide sufficient justification for
waiving or tolling the time limitation. The agency's decision to dismiss
the instant complaint for untimely EEO counselor contact was proper.
However, we note that by facsimile to the agency dated November 17, 2006,
complainant requested that her complaint be amended to include a claim
that she was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal for filing
her EEO complaint when, on October 26, 2006, she received a Letter of
Reprimand. The agency sent complainant an email dated November 17, 2006,
stating that complainant's request would be considered upon receipt of the
EEO Counselor's Report. It is clear from the record that the agency did
not address complainant's request to amend her complaint to include the
new claim. Therefore, we direct the agency to treat complainant's Letter
of Reprimand allegation as a new EEO complaint and process it accordingly.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106.
Accordingly, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision dismissing
the instant complaint for untimely EEO Counselor. However, we REMAND
complainant's October 26, 2006 Letter of Reprimand allegation to the
agency for further processing in accordance with the Order set forth
below.
ORDER (E0408)
The agency is ordered to process the remanded claim (Letter of Reprimand)
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108 et seq. The agency shall
acknowledge to the complainant that it has received the remanded claim
within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision becomes final.
The agency shall issue to complainant a copy of the investigative file
and also shall notify complainant of the appropriate rights within one
hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision becomes
final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time.
If the complainant requests a final decision without a hearing, the
agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60) days of receipt
of complainant's request.
A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a
copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of
rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0408)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, D.C. 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement
of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the
right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's
order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.
See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on
the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
"Right to File a Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.
A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying
complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the
administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for
enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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, D.C. 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 (T0408)
This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a
portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion
of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion
of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative
processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until
such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.
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 (Z0408)
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
January 22, 2009
__________________
Date
1 A claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation is not within
the Commission's jurisdiction.
??
??
??
??
2
0120072049
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
6
0120072049
7
0120072049