01A14013_r
11-19-2001
George M. Prior, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
George M. Prior v. United States Postal Service
01A14013
November 19, 2001
.
George M. Prior,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A14013
Agency No. 4-I-630-0090-00
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the complaint was properly
dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO
Counselor contact. On March 10, 2000, complainant sought EEO counseling
claiming that he had been discriminated against on the bases of sex,
age, and religion when:
(1) his request to be trained on another route was denied; and
(2) his request to restore the seniority date on his RCA position to
May 1997, was denied.
Complainant identified the alleged date of discrimination for both
claims as February 28, 2000. However, complainant claimed that after
numerous conversations and attempts to resolve the matters identified,
in August and December 1999, he was finally informed that he needed
to file a grievance to address his concerns on February 28, 2000.
Subsequently, complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact on March 10,
2000, and filed a formal complaint concerning these issues.
The agency issued a final decision dismissing the complaint on the
grounds of untimely EEO counselor contact after finding that complainant
acknowledged that in August 1999, he had discussed with the postmaster
the alleged denial of training, and in December 1999, he had contacted
the Office of Labor Relations concerning his seniority.
On appeal, complainant argues that he was repeatedly deceived by an
agency postmaster, believing that the postmaster had complainant's best
interest at heart. Complainant asserts that he made repeated attempts
to trust him, but that the postmaster merely advised him on February 28,
2000, to pursue a grievance that had followed �many months of cordial
promises. . . �
The record discloses that complainant had or should have had a
reasonable suspicion of unlawful employment discrimination regarding the
events raised in claims 1 and 2 in August and December 1999; however,
complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until March
10, 2000, which is well beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation period.
The Commission has consistently held that informal efforts to challenge
an agency's adverse action do not toll the running of the time limit to
contact an EEO Counselor. See Hosford v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05890038 (June 9, 1989). Although complainant might
have been told on February 28, 2000, to pursue the grievance process
after having unsuccessfully attempted to revolve the matters that are
the subject of the instant complaint, complainant nevertheless was
aware of the alleged discrimination at least by August and December
1999, but did not seek EEO counseling within 45 days. On appeal,
no persuasive arguments or evidence have been presented to warrant an
extension of the time limit for initiating EEO contact. Accordingly,
the agency's final decision dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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
November 19, 2001
__________________
Date