Rachael Bail, Complainant,v.Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 10, 2000
01a01278 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 10, 2000)

01a01278

07-10-2000

Rachael Bail, Complainant, v. Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Agency.


Rachael Bail, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A01278

) Agency No. IA00

Marc B. Nathanson, ) Hearing No. 100-99-7371X

Chairman, )

Broadcasting Board of Governors, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency

decision dated October 28, 1999, dismissing her 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.<1> In her complaint,

complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on the

bases of sex (female) and age (DOB 8/1/23) when:

She was notified in October 1997, that she was non-selected for the

position of Duty Editor (GS-14) in the Voice of America Newsroom; and

On November 17, 1997, she was notified of her non-selection for three

Duty Editor Positions (GS-14) in the Voice of America Newsroom.

The agency accepted complainant's complaint for investigation, and at the

conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested a hearing before

an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On September 30, 1999, the AJ issued

a decision dismissing complainant's claim for failure to prosecute,

and for failure to timely contact an EEO Counselor. Specifically,

the AJ determined that complainant forfeited her right to proceed when

she failed to respond to her Order to file a summary judgment motion,

and that complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on January 20, 1998,

or 64 days after the last date of alleged discrimination, making it

beyond the forty-five day time limitation. On October 28, 1999, the

agency issued a final decision fully implementing the AJ's decision.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,657 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(a)).

On appeal, complainant asserts that she contacted an EEO Counselor on

December 17, 1997, or �30 days after being informed of her non-selection

to the Supervisor Editor positions (November 17, 1997).� As evidence for

her assertion, complainant points to her March 9, 1998 formal complaint

(as found in the Report of Investigation), which states �12/17/97" as

the �Date of First Contact.� We note that the date of first contact in

the complaint is both typed and written, with the date 1-98 crossed out.

We further note that the EEO Counselor's report states the date of initial

contact as �1/16/98,� and the date of initial interview as �1/20/98.�

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 days of the date of

the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel

action, within forty-five 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 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.

Upon review of the record, we find that complainant's complaint was

properly dismissed. Although it is clear that the AJ mistakenly used

the EEO Counselor's January 20, 1998 date of first interview as the

initial date of contact, complainant has not supplied sufficient evidence

for us to conclude her initial contact was on December 17, 1997, and

therefore timely. The EEO Counselor's report clearly states the date

of complainant's initial contact as January 16, 1999, and by itself,

the formal complaint is not sufficiently reliable for the Commission to

find that the information in the EEO Counselor's report was in error.

Not only did complainant herself provide the information in her March

9, 1998 formal complaint, but the original January 1998 date in the

complaint was crossed out and replaced with the December 17, 1997 date

relied on by complainant. Therefore, as complainant's January 16, 1998

initial EEO Counselor contact occurred more than forty-five days after the

October 1997 and November 17, 1997 dates complainant knew of the alleged

discriminatory actions, the agency properly dismissed complainant�s

complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact.<2> Accordingly, the

agency's decision dismissing complainant's complaint is 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

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_______________ __________________________

Date 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.

2As we have affirmed the agency's decision to dismiss complainant's

complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact, we do not address the

agency's alternative dismissal for failure to prosecute.