Matthew E. Kieron, Complainant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 10, 2000
01990006 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 10, 2000)

01990006

07-10-2000

Matthew E. Kieron, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Matthew E. Kieron, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01990006

) Agency No. 98-66604-004

Richard J. Danzig, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

The Commission finds that the agency's decision dated August 26, 1998,

dismissing complainant's complaint due to untimely EEO contact and/or

for stating the same claim that was pending before and had been decided

by the agency is proper pursuant to the regulation set forth at 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.107(a)(1) and (2)).<1> In his complaint, dated

June 2, 1998, complainant alleged that he was subjected to harassment

and a hostile work environment which led to his constructive discharge

effective June 30, 1996.

The record indicates that complainant, previously, filed a formal

complaint on March 27, 1996, Agency No. 96-66604-007, concerning his

reassignment, relocation, performance award, a letter of requirement, and

working conditions within the agency. On December 6, 1996, the agency

dismissed the subject complaint, and complainant appealed the matter to

the Commission on January 7, 1997. On March 3, 1998, the Commission

issued its decision modifying the agency's decision. Specifically,

the Commission ordered the agency to provide complainant with EEO

counseling with regard to his constructive discharge which was raised

for the first time on appeal. The record indicates that in accordance

with the Commission's order, complainant was provided with EEO counseling

with regard to his constructive discharge claim on March 30, 1998.

The record also indicates that complainant, previously, filed another

formal complaint on July 8, 1996, Agency No. 96-66604-010, concerning

his leave requests, mid-year performance review, and working conditions

during his employment at the agency. The record indicates that these

matters are pending before an EEOC Administrative Judge.

The agency stated, in the instant decision, that complainant's claim

concerning harassment involved the same matters that were raised in his

previous complaints, discussed above. It is noted that complainant did

not identify any specific incidents of harassment in his formal complaint.

According to the EEO Counselor's Report, it appears that the alleged

harassment involved the same matters that were raised in the previous

complaints, i.e., concerning his reassignment, relocation, performance

award, a letter of requirement, mid-year performance review, leave

requests, and working conditions during his employment at the agency.

Furthermore, on appeal, complainant does not dispute the agency's

contentions on this matter. Thus, the Commission finds that the agency's

dismissal of the alleged harassment for stating the same claim as a

prior complaint is proper.

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.

With regard to complainant's constructive discharge claim, the record

indicates that complainant accepted the separation incentive pay

and retired effective June 30, 1996. The record also indicates that

complainant raised the alleged claim for the first time in his previous

appeal on January 7, 1997, which was beyond the 45-day time limit.

On appeal, complainant notes that he raised the subject claim on or

after July 26, 1996, during an agency's investigation of the previous

complaint, Agency No. 96-66604-007. However, there is no evidence in

the record that complainant asked the agency to amend his previous

complaint to include this matter nor is there any evidence in the

record that he contested such on his previous appeal. It appears that

complainant merely raised the matter as background information for the

subject complaint, rather than a live issue. Furthermore, the record

indicates that complainant filed Agency No. 96-66604-010 on July 8, 1996,

8 days after the alleged constructive discharge of June 30, 1996, but he

did not include the constructive discharge claim therein. Based on the

foregoing, the Commission finds that complainant did not intend to pursue

an EEO complaint with regard to his constructive discharge claim until,

at the earliest, on or around January 7, 1997, when he raised the subject

matter to the Commission for the first time. Thus, the Commission finds

that complainant fails to present adequate justification to warrant an

extension of the applicable time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor

with regard to his constructive discharge claim.

Accordingly, the agency's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

July 10, 2000

DATE

Carlton

M.

Hadden,

Acting

Director

Office of Federal Operations

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.