Neil Hanrahan, Appellant,v.William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 5, 1999
01985109_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 5, 1999)

01985109_r

11-05-1999

Neil Hanrahan, Appellant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency.


Neil Hanrahan, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01985109

) Agency No. N98-02

William S. Cohen, )

Secretary, )

Department of Defense, )

(Defense Contract Audit )

Agency), )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On June 12, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from a final agency decision (FAD), dated May 11, 1998, pertaining to

his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29

U.S.C. �621 et seq., �501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �791 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The Commission accepts appellant's

appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

In his complaint, appellant alleged that he has been subjected to "an

ongoing pattern of discrimination and retaliation since March 1989."

Specifically, the agency framed appellant's allegation as follows:

Was appellant sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile work

environment while under the supervision of Supervisor A (from March 1989

to October 1991 and again from October 1992 to March 1998) because of

his sex (male), age (DOB: 6 Feb 48), disability (asthma), and/or national

origin (Irish)?

The agency dismissed the part of appellant's allegation which occurred

prior to August 10, 1994, as untimely. Specifically, the agency noted

that appellant previously contacted an EEO Counselor on June 9, 1994,

alleging that he was sexually harassed while under the supervision of

Supervisor A from March 1989 through October 1991, and from October

1992 to the present. While appellant was advised of his right to file

a formal complaint, pursuant to that counseling, on August 10, 1994,

appellant did not elect to file a complaint at that time. Consequently,

the agency dismissed appellant's attempt to belatedly raise the issue

of sexual harassment occurring prior to August 10, 1994, the date he

received the notice of right to file, on the grounds that the formal

complaint was untimely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(b).

On appeal, appellant contends that he did not pursue a formal complaint

in August 1994, because he believed that he would have to prove that

Supervisor A was abusive only to male employees.

In response, the agency asserts that since appellant did not file a

complaint until three and a half years after receiving his notice of the

right to do so, the allegation regarding harassment prior to August 10,

1998 was untimely and was properly dismissed.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(b) specifies that a complaint,

or any portion thereof, that fails to comply with the applicable time

limits contained in �1614.106(b) shall be dismissed. EEOC Regulation

29 C.F.R. �1614.106(b) provides that a complaint must be filed within

15 days of receipt of the notice of right to file an EEO complaint.

The Commission has held that, in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.604(c),

the time limitation for filing a complaint is subject to waiver, estoppel,

and equitable tolling.

The contentions advanced by appellant do not provide a basis sufficient

to extend the time limit in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.604(c).

The record indicates that appellant was given and signed for the Notice

of Right to File Individual Complaint on August 10, 1994. His complaint

was filed March 16, 1998, beyond the fifteen-day limitation period.

Appellant's contention that he did not think he had sufficient evidence

does not justify extending the time limitations imposed on the EEO

process. The explanations proffered by appellant, without more, do not

justify his failure to exercise due diligence in preserving his legal

rights. See, Polsby v. Chase, 970 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir. 1992).

Therefore, the agency's dismissal of appellant's allegation regarding

harassment occurring prior to August 10, 1994, was proper and 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 (S0993)

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:

November 5, 1999

____________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations