Shirley A. Perez, Appellant,v.Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 6, 1999
01986571_r (E.E.O.C. Oct. 6, 1999)

01986571_r

10-06-1999

Shirley A. Perez, Appellant, v. Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency.


Shirley A. Perez, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01986571

) Agency No. NCN-98-HQs-A040

)

Daniel S. Goldin, )

Administrator, )

National Aeronautics and )

Space Administration, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On August 29, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 6, 1998

final agency decision, which was received by appellant on August 14, 1998,

dismissing her complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ��1614.107(a) and (b),

for failure to state a claim and due to untimely EEO Counselor contact.

In its final decision, the agency identified the allegations

of appellant's May 22, 1998 complaint as whether appellant was

discriminated against when: (1) she was not promoted to a GS-15 level

position while others within her code received promotions in June 1997;

(2) she received an inaccurate, vague, and biased desk audit in April

1997, which determined that her position was properly classified at the

GS-14 level; and (3) the agency Human Resources Management Division

maintained a policy of condoning discriminatory personnel practices

throughout the agency. The agency stated that the alleged incidents of

allegations (1) and (2) occurred in April and June 1997, but appellant

did not contact an EEO Counselor until April 1, 1998, which was beyond

the 45-day time limit set by the regulations. The agency also stated

that these allegations did not constitute a continuing violation since

there was no discriminatory act which fell within the 45-day time limit.

The agency indicated that allegation (3) involved a general allegation

of employment discrimination which purportedly affected a group or class

of employees; thus, it failed to state a claim.<1>

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of

discrimination be brought to the attention of the EEO Counselor within

45 days of the alleged discriminatory event, or the effective date of

an alleged discriminatory personnel action.

The Commission has adopted a �reasonable suspicion� standard (as opposed

to a �supportive facts� standard) to determine when the limitation period

is triggered under the EEOC Regulations. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2);

Ball v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880247 (July 6,

1988). Thus, the limitations period is not triggered until a complainant

should reasonably suspect discrimination, but before all the facts that

would support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.

Upon review, we find that the incidents raised in allegations (1) and (2)

occurred in and before June 1997. The EEO Counselor's Report indicates

that appellant, a Resource Management Officer, GS-14, did not contact

an EEO Counselor in a timely manner because �it bothered [her] to file

an EEO complaint against the people that she worked with on a day-to-day

basis.� Further, on appeal, appellant contends that she unsuccessfully

tried to resolve the matters within the agency. The Commission, however,

has held that the internal appeal of an agency action does not toll the

running of EEO time limitations. See Hosford v. Veterans Administration,

EEOC Request No. 05890038 (June 9, 1989). Furthermore, the Commission

has held that all appellants must act with due diligence in the pursuit

of their claims or the doctrine of laches may be applied. The doctrine

of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual's failure

to diligently pursue their actions could bar their claim. See O'Dell

v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05901130

(December 27, 1990). Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant

failed to present adequate justification to warrant an extension of the

applicable time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2).

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides that an agency may dismiss

a complaint which fails to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.103.

In order to establish standing initially under 29 C.F.R. �1614.103, a

complainant must be either an employee or an applicant for employment of

the agency against which the allegations of discrimination are raised.

In addition, the allegations must concern an employment policy or

practice which affects the individual in his/her capacity as an employee

or applicant for employment. The agency shall accept a complaint from any

aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he/she

has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,

religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. 29 C.F.R. ��1614.103

and .106(a). The Commission's Federal sector case precedent has long

defined an �aggrieved employee� as one who suffers a present harm or loss

with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

Upon review, we find that allegation (3) involves a generalized

grievance shared substantially by all agency employees, i.e., by

alleged discriminatory personnel practices on the part of the agency.

The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that a generalized grievance shared

by all or a substantially large class of individuals is not sufficient

to establish standing. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975). Since

appellant did not identify any specific personal harm affecting her

employment, she failed to state a claim.

With regard to appellant's claim for a continuing violation, it is noted

that since appellant failed to properly raise any allegation which

fell within the 45-day time period for contacting an EEO Counselor,

the complaint did not constitute a continuing violation. See McGivern

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05901150 (December 28,

1990); Starr v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01890412

(April 6, 1989).

Accordingly, the agency's final decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

October 6, 1999

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1In its final decision, the agency advised appellant that she may contact

an EEO Counselor if she wishes to pursue a class complaint on this matter.