Veronica R. Crutches, Complainant,v.Pete Geren, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 15, 2009
0120092790 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 15, 2009)

0120092790

09-15-2009

Veronica R. Crutches, Complainant, v. Pete Geren, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Veronica R. Crutches,

Complainant,

v.

Pete Geren,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120092790

Agency No. ARIMEU09MAR01102

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision (FAD) dated May 14, 2009, 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.

Complainant was a supervisory program manager, serving as a Deputy

Garrison Commander in Bamberg, Germany from July 8, 2007 to December 22,

2008. Effective December 23, 2008, she was reassigned to the position

of supervisory management analyst serving as Chief of Base Realignment &

Closure (BRAC) at Fort McPherson, Georgia. In her complaint, complainant

alleged that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment on the

bases of race (black) and sex (female) when:

1. during her above employment in Germany, she was overlooked by the

Commander and not supported when carrying out the Commander's decisions;

2. by letter dated September 2, 2008, her request for Federal Executive

Institute Seminar Program training was denied;

3. for approximately 70 days prior to December 9, 2008, she was placed

on administrative leave, pending the outcome of a 15-6 investigation

involving misuse of government resources. During this time, rumors

surfaced that she was guilty of charges, in jail, or fired, which the

Commander did not address, resulting in a hostile work environment;

4. she received a letter of reprimand dated November 17, 2008,

5. she received a notice of 14 calendar day suspension dated December 5,

2008, which was effective December 9, 2008; and

6. she received an unfavorable performance appraisal on or about January

26, 2009, for the period covering October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008.1

The FAD dismissed the complaint for failure to timely initiate contact

with an EEO counselor. It reasoned that complainant contacted an EEO

counselor on March 23, 2009, beyond the 45 calendar day time limit to

do so.

On appeal, complainant argues that she received an unfavorable decision on

February 12, 2009, on an administrative grievance she filed. She argues

the grievance decision was the final culminating event of discrimination,

and she timely contacted an EEO counselor on March 23, 2009, regarding the

agency's continuous actions. The grievance decision upheld the letter

of reprimand and suspension which are the subject of claims 4 and 5.

In opposition to the appeal, the agency argues that the administrative

grievance did not toll the time limit to seek EEO counseling, and the

FAD should be affirmed.

An aggrieved person must seek EEO counseling within 45 days of the date

of the alleged discriminatory action, or in the case of a personnel

action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.105(a)(1) & .107(a)(2). The utilization of internal agency

procedures, union grievances, and other remedial processes does not toll

the time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor. Hosford v. Department

of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05890038 (June 9, 1989).

Complainant argues that grievance decision was the final culminating event

of discrimination. To the extent we accept that the grievance decision

was part of complainant's complaint,2 we find it does not give grounds

for filing an independent claim. The grievance decision concerned

complainant's appeal of the letter of reprimand and suspension which

occurred in late 2008. Complainant's dispute in the EEO process with the

grievance decision constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the

administrative grievance forum, and fails to state a claim. See Wills

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998);

Kleinman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585

(September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993); 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).

As complainant failed to timely initiate EEO counseling regarding claims

1 through 6, the FAD 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

September 15, 2009

__________________

Date

1 Complainant raised claims 2 and 5 with the EEO counselor. We find

claim 2 was part of complainant's overall complaint claim of harassment,

and claim 5 was referenced in her complaint, albeit not in an expected

location. We find that the FAD incorrectly did not include claims 2

and 5 as claims in complainant's complaint.

2 Complainant raised the grievance decision with the EEO counselor,

but did not specifically allege this matter in her complaint.

??

??

??

??

2

0120092790

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120092790