01984808
03-22-2000
Randolph F. Crutchfield, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Randolph F. Crutchfield v. United States Postal Service
01984808
March 22, 2000
Randolph F. Crutchfield, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01984808
) Agency No. 4D-270-0073-98
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of
the agency 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.<1> The final agency decision was issued on
May 18, 1998. The appeal was postmarked June 4, 1998. Accordingly, the
appeal is timely (see 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified
and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), and is accepted in
accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at
29 C.F.R. �1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether the agency properly dismissed the complaint
on the grounds of untimely EEO contact.
BACKGROUND
According to the EEO Counselor's report, complainant initiated contact
with an EEO Counselor on March 9, 1998. On April 22, 1998, complainant
filed a formal EEO complaint wherein he claimed that he was discriminated
against in reprisal for his previous EEO activity when on January 8,
1998, the Postmaster told him that he needed to go to his physician to
obtain a completed CA-17 form, and then subsequently informed him that
it was the wrong form and that he needed a light duty status report
completed instead.
In its final decision, the agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds
that complainant failed to contact an EEO Counselor in a timely manner.
The agency noted that the alleged act of discrimination occurred on
January 8, 1998. The agency determined that complainant initiated
contact with an EEO Counselor on March 9, 1998, which was more than 45
days after the date of the alleged act of discrimination.
On appeal, complainant maintains that he initiated contact with an EEO
Counselor with regard to the instant matter in writing on February 4,
1998, and via telephone on or about February 10, 1998. According to
complainant, additional EEO forms were sent to him, completed, and mailed
back to the EEO Counselor within the requisite time limit. In support of
his contentions, complainant submits a copy of his formal complaint form
dated February 4, 1998, for agency case number 4D-270-0036-98. In this
complaint, complainant indicates the dates of alleged discrimination as
October 30, 1997, December 3, 1997, and January 6, 1998, and describes
the alleged discrimination as being sent to his doctors many times for
information and being requested to complete a light duty assignment form.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
cited as 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 record reveals that on January 8, 1998, the Postmaster informed
complainant that he needed to obtain from his physician a completed
CA-17 form, and that the Postmaster subsequently told complainant that
it was the wrong form and that he needed a light duty status report
completed instead. Whereas the EEO Counselor's report indicates
that complainant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor on March 9,
1998, complainant contends on appeal that he contacted an EEO Counselor
with regard to the instant matter in writing on February 4, 1998, and
by telephone on or about February 10, 1998. We note, however, that
the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions
fails to indicate that he contacted the agency regarding the claims
at issue in the present complaint. Complainant submits a copy of
his formal complaint form for a prior matter, which does not contain
the same claims as his present complaint, i.e., there is no mention
of any alleged discriminatory incident occurring on January 8, 1998.
Consequently, we find that complainant failed to present sufficient
argument/evidence to warrant an extension of the applicable time limit.
Accordingly, the agency's dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of
untimely EEO contact was proper and 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
March 22, 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 Equal Employment Assistant
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.