Steven Constable, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 7, 1999
01985130_r (E.E.O.C. Sep. 7, 1999)

01985130_r

09-07-1999

Steven Constable, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Steven Constable, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01985130

) Agency No. 4B120005398

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On June 6, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this Commission

from a final agency decision (FAD), dated June 2, 1998, 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.

The Commission accepts appellant's appeal in accordance with EEOC Order

No. 960, as amended.

In his complaint, appellant alleged that was subjected to discrimination

on the bases of sex (male) and reprisal when he was not selected for a

detail as an Ad Hoc EEO Counselor/Investigator for the period January

23 through February 28, 1998.

The agency dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(b), for untimely EEO Counselor contact. Specifically,

the agency noted that appellant sought counseling on February 23, 1998;

however, the agency noted that by appellant's own admission, he became

aware of his nonselection in the Fall of 1997. The record indicates

that appellant was notified by correspondence dated October 17, 1997,

of the identity of the individual in the EEO Counselor/Investigator,

Ad-Hoc position. Further, the agency noted that appellant had engaged

in prior EEO activity and he should be versed in the relevant time limits.

On appeal, appellant asserts that he did not know that there had been a

vacancy filled for an EEO counselor until he received a call, in the Fall

of 1997, concerning a prior, unrelated complaint. Appellant was called

by the person who was hired for the position for which appellant had

previously applied, but was told that there were no current vacancies.

Appellant further argues that he could not in good faith raise this

complaint, at that time, with the person who was not only hired into

the position at issue, but who was also working to resolve his prior

complaint. Essentially, appellant's position is that while he had

knowledge of the 45-day limitation, he felt extremely "awkward" in

approaching the very person who had gotten the position for which he

was not considered.

In response, the agency notes that appellant could have raised the issues

in his April 29th complaint by resorting to three telephone numbers

listed on an EEO poster at appellant's installation. The agency submits

a copy of the poster containing the three different telephone numbers.

The agency contends that appellant could have chosen to call any of those

numbers in an effort to communicate with a different EEO counselor who was

not in any way associated with his prior or present complaint at issue.

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 Ball v. USPS, EEOC Request

No. 05880247 (July 6, 1988). 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 she was not notified of the

time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know

and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or

personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence she was prevented

by circumstances beyond her control from contacting the Counselor within

the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency

or the Commission.

Appellant clearly acknowledges that he was aware of the 45-day limitation,

but was unable to comply with the applicable time limit for initiating

EEO contact because he felt awkward under the circumstances. The agency,

however, presented evidence of record to show that a poster, containing

three different telephone numbers with three different possible options

for appellant, was on display at appellant's work site during the relevant

time period. By pursuing those options, appellant could have contacted

a different EEO counselor, who was not connected with the position at

issue. Appellant became aware of the alleged discrimination on or around

October 16, 1997, however, he did not contact an EEO counselor until

February 23, 1998. We find that appellant failed to present adequate

justification to warrant an extension of the applicable time limit.

Accordingly, the agency's 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. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. 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:

Sept. 7, 1999

____________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations