Stephanie G. Rigopoulos, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 27, 2009
0120090847 (E.E.O.C. May. 27, 2009)

0120090847

05-27-2009

Stephanie G. Rigopoulos, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Stephanie G. Rigopoulos,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120090847

Agency No. 1B017000108

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated November 21, 2008, dismissing her complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.

At the time of the events at issue, complainant was employed by the agency

as a Casual employee at the Westborough, Massachusetts Post Office. She

was hired in November 2007 into a temporary position to assist with the

large volume of holiday mail. In an EEO complaint filed on November 6,

2008, complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on

the basis of sex (female) when she was sexually harassed by a co-worker.

Briefly, complainant alleged that on November 29, 2007, she was

subjected to inappropriate behavior by the employee assigned to train her.

Specifically, complainant alleged the coworker was "overgenerous" with his

praise for her performing even the simplest task, he used the pretense

of showing her how to operate a pallet vehicle to press against her,

he kept talking to her after her shift had ended and escorted her as

she was exiting the facility, and he kissed her on the cheek and hugged

her as she left. Complainant promptly reported this incident to the

local police, as well as agency management. According to complainant,

management offered her a position in another facility so she would not

have to encounter the coworker again.

The agency dismissed complainant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO Counselor contact, asserting she did

not contact the counselor within the required 45-day period. The instant

appeal followed.

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 record establishes that the alleged discriminatory event in this

matter occurred on November 29, 2007, but complainant did not initiate

contact with an EEO Counselor until September 2, 2008, approximately

ten months after the alleged incident, and well beyond the forty-five

(45) day limitation period.1

On appeal, complainant has presented no persuasive arguments or

evidence warranting an extension of the time limit for initiating EEO

counselor contact. Complainant argues that she was not aware of the

limitation period for contacting an EEO counselor. However, the record

contains an affidavit from an agency official attesting to the fact

that EEO counseling posters were on display in complainant's facility

that contained the 45-day limitation period. Moreover, the record

establishes, and complainant admits, that she attended new employee

orientation training on November 27, 2007, just two days before the

alleged incident, in which materials containing the 45-day limitation

period for EEO counseling were disseminated. In her statement on appeal,

complainant states no particular attention was focused on the time

limits for contacting the EEO counselor. Nonetheless, the Commission

finds complainant was put on notice as to the time limits. Finally,

complainant's reliance on her report of the alleged harassment to the

police and management to resolve her claims does not excuse an untimely

EEO Counselor contact. The Commission has consistently held that the

utilization of agency procedures, union grievances, and other remedial

processes does not toll the time limit for contacting an EEO counselor.

See Ellis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01992093

(November 29, 2000).

Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's

complaint is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 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 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

May 27, 2009

__________________

Date

1 The record indicates that complainant also filed a charge of

discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission on Discrimination on

May 21, 2008. Even using that date, her EEO counseling contact would be

considered untimely. That matter was dismissed by the Commission for

lack of jurisdiction on June 17, 2008. We note that even after this

dismissal, complainant waited nearly three more months to contact the

agency's EEO counselor.

??

??

??

??

2

0120090847

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120090847