[Redacted], Bradley S., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 24, 2021

Appeal No. 0120064588 (E.E.O.C. May. 24, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Bradley S.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021002162 Appeal No. 0120064588 Agency No. 056554001400 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120064588 (December 15, 2008). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b). By regulation, requests must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days after the party receives the previous decision. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b). A document is timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(b). It is noted that the Commission’s previous decision included a Certificate of Mailing indicating that, for purposes of timeliness, the Commission will presume that the decision was received within five (5) calendar days of the date on which it was mailed, in this case on December 15, 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2021002162 2 2008. Complainant is presumed to have received the previous decision no later than December 20, 2008. Thirty days from that date is January 19, 2009. As evidenced by the email date, Complainant emailed the request to this office on February 19, 2021, 12 years later and well beyond the 30-day limit set by regulation. Complainant states that he sent his request for reconsideration to the Agency on January 26, 2009, and points to the Agency’s response. The Agency’s response states that it would place the request in the file and states that “EEOC-OFO” would notify the Agency when Complainant has requested reconsideration. The Agency did not state it would forward the request to the EEOC, and Complainant has provided no other proof of mailing. The Commission has previously held that when provided with the proper address, filing at the wrong address does not constitute a proper filing. See Pacheco v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930700 (September 10, 1993) (appeal untimely when sent to wrong address despite receipt of proper instructions); Meggitt v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A40408 (February 3, 2004) (above principle applied to a formal complaint that was untimely filed). In addition, the Commission has consistently held that a Complainant must act with due diligence in the pursuit of his claim or the doctrine of laches may apply. See Becker v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01A45028 (November 18, 2004) (finding that the doctrine of laches applied when complainant waited over two years from the date of the alleged discriminatory events before contacting an EEO Counselor); O'Dell v. Department of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05901130 (December 27, 1990). The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual's failure to pursue diligently his course of action could bar his claim. Complainant waited 12 years after the issuance of the prior decision before following up on the matter. Complainant has failed to provide sufficient justification for extending or tolling the time limit. For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant's request is denied. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120064588 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610) This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal from the Commission’s decision. 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. 2021002162 3 RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations May 24, 2021 Date