Robert A. Friday, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 2000
01993283 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)

01993283

03-29-2000

Robert A. Friday, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Robert A. Friday, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01993283

) Agency No. 1-G-701-0104-98

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On March 16, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from a final agency decision (FAD) received by him on February 17, 1999,

pertaining to his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in

violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> In his complaint, complainant alleged that

he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of physical disability

(panic attack disorder, caused by chemical imbalance) when on July 23,

1998, complainant became aware that some of his absences qualified for

the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Complainant alleges that had the

agency properly informed him about his rights under FMLA, his request

for a transfer to another postal facility would not have been denied on

June 4, 1998, as a result of a purportedly deficient attendance record.

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to Volume

64 Fed. Reg. 37, 644, 37, 656 (1999)(to be cited as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(2)), for failure to timely initiate contact with an EEO

Counselor. Specifically, the agency found that since complainant's

request for transfer was denied on June 4, 1998, complainant's August 10,

1998 contact of an EEO Counselor was untimely.

On appeal, complainant argues that he only developed a reasonable

suspicion of unlawful employment discrimination on July 23, 1998, thereby

rendering timely his initial EEO Counselor contact on August 10, 1998.

Specifically, complainant argues that on July 23, 1998, he was unaware

that he had any recourse in this matter �until [he] received a copy of

Federal Regulations Part 825 from the Department of Labor (Wage and Hour

Division). . . �

The record in this case contains a letter from complainant dated November

5, 1998. Therein, complainant makes the following statement: �Between

April 1996 and March 1998 I had several absences that are attributable to

one underlying medical condition. Until March 1998, I had no knowledge

that my condition qualified as a Family Medical Leave Act condition.�

Volume 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1)) requires

that complaints of discrimination should be brought to the attention

of the EEO 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.

The FAD states that complainant had forty-five days from June 4, 1998,

the date his transfer request was denied, in which to seek counseling

concerning his allegations of discrimination. The agency also refers

to a letter from complainant dated November 5, 1998 in which he stated

that he was aware in March 1998 that his condition qualified under FMLA.

On appeal, as well as in his informal complaint, complainant indicates

that he did not become completely aware that his rights had been violated

until July 23, 1998, when he met with agency officials concerning his

transfer denial. We are unpersuaded by complainant's arguments.

The record reflects that complainant was aware as early as March 1998,

that some of the absences attributable to his medical condition were

purportedly covered under the FMLA. The record further reflects that

complaint was subsequently made aware, on June 4, 1998, that his transfer

request was denied for attendance reasons. We find that complainant

had, or should have had, a reasonable suspicion of unlawful employment

discrimination at that point. Contrary to complainant's assertions on

appeal, we discern nothing in the record relating to the events of July

23, 1998, that would cause complainant to develop a reasonable suspicion

on that day. Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss 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).

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 29, 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.