01993887
07-11-2000
Rickie B. Mosley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Rickie B. Mosley, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01993887
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 1G-771-005199
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
On April 13, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from a final agency decision (FAD) received by him on April 5, 1999,
pertaining to 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> In his complaint, complainant alleged that
he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Black), color
(brown), sex (male), and in retaliation for prior EEO activity when:
Complainant was denied his Economic Value Added (EVA) payment for 1998.
The agency dismissed complainant's complaint 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)(2)), for untimely
EEO Counselor contact. Specifically, the agency stated that the
alleged discriminatory incident occurred on December 18, 1998, however,
complainant did not initiate EEO Counselor contact until February 26,
1999, beyond the applicable limitations period for timely counselor
contact.
On appeal, complainant explains his delay in contacting an EEO Counselor.
Complainant states that upon discovering that his EVA payment was denied
he contacted the Senior Plant Manager to contest the denial and was under
the impression that the Senior Plant Manager would reconsider the denial
and grant his EVA. Complainant states that he �thought management would
resolve this issue and [he] would not need to file an EEO Complaint.�
Complainant explains, however, that after receiving a February 23,
1999 letter from the Senior Plant Manager affirming the denial of his
EVA payment and discovering other similar situations, he then contacted
the EEO Office.
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.
EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that he was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented
by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
In the present case, complainant identifies the date of the alleged
discriminatory action as December 18, 1998. Complainant, however,
did not contact the EEO office until February 26, 1999, beyond the
forty-five (45) day time limit. Complainant contends, that he contacted
the Senior Plant Manager to resolve his complaint without filing an EEO
complaint. The Commission, however, has held that informal efforts to
resolve a dispute do not toll the running of the time limitations period.
See Hosford v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05890038
(June 9, 1989). Further, complainant does not contend that he was
unaware of the time limitations. Therefore, we find that complainant
has failed to present adequate justification to warrant an extension of
the time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor
Accordingly, the agency's dismissal for untimely counselor 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).
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 11, 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.