Sally L. Arnett, Complainant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 16, 2000
01a02753 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2000)

01a02753

08-16-2000

Sally L. Arnett, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Sally L. Arnett v. Department of the Navy

01A02753

August 16, 2000

.

Sally L. Arnett,

Complainant,

v.

Richard J. Danzig,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A02753

Agency No. 99-00027-S03

DECISION

The Commission finds that the agency's decision dated January 27, 2000,

dismissing complainant's complaint due to untimely EEO contact and/or

for stating the same claim that is pending before the agency is proper

pursuant to the regulations 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)(1) and (2)).<1>

In her complaint, complainant alleged that she was continuously not

selected for the following positions: (a) RB96-42 and 058(96), Equal

Employment Specialist, GS-260-5/7/9/11 in 1996; (b) ASF 026(96), Employee

Relations Specialist, GS-230-11, 2nd announcement in 1996; (c) 054(98),

Employee Relations Specialist, GS-230-11 in 1998; (d) 005(98), Employee

Relations Specialist, GS-230-11 in 1998; (e) Employee Relations Specialist

�advertized approximately 3/96,� ASF 026(96), 1st announcement in 1996;

(f) 074(97), Personnel Management Specialist, GS-201-11 in 1997; (g)

132(97), Labor Relations Specialist, GS-230-11 in 1997; and (h) 095(98),

Equal Employment Specialist, GS-260-7/9/11 in 1998.

The record indicates that complainant previously filed Agency

No. 99-00027-S02 on March 23, 1999, concerning claim (h), i.e., her

nonselection to 095(98) Equal Employment Specialist, GS-260-7/9/11,

which is pending before the agency at this time. Thus, the agency's

dismissal of claim (h) on the subject grounds was proper.

With regard to claims (a) through (g), the agency, in its decision, stated

that the alleged incidents occurred from 1996 to 1998, but complainant

did not contact an EEO Counselor until she sent her letter dated June 16,

1999, to the Deputy EEO Officer. The record indicates that the alleged

nonselections in claims (a), (b), (e), and (f) occurred in 1996 and 1997.

The record also indicates that the incident in claim (c) occurred on

October 27, 1998, when the agency made a selection decision for Vacancy

Announcement No. 054(98). It is noted that the record indicates that

complainant did not apply for such vacancy. With regard to claim (d),

the record indicates that complainant was notified of her nonselection

for Vacancy Announcement No. 005(98) on March 3, 1998. Based on the

foregoing, the Commission finds that complainant's June 16, 1999 EEO

contact with regard to claims (a) through (g) was beyond the 45-day time

limit. On appeal, complainant does not present adequate justification

to warrant an extension of the applicable time limit for contacting an

EEO Counselor.

Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.<2>

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 16, 2000

__________________

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.

2It is noted that the agency's dismissal of claim (a) on the alternative

grounds needs not be discussed since its dismissal is affirmed on the

grounds for untimely EEO contact.