James L. Griffin, Complainant,v.Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 25, 2007
0120073209 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 25, 2007)

0120073209

09-25-2007

James L. Griffin, Complainant, v. Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


James L. Griffin,

Complainant,

v.

Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073209

Agency No. EEODFS-07-0111-F

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the final agency decision (FAD)

dated June 14, 2006, dismissing a portion of his 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., Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. Complainant alleged that

he was subjected to discrimination based on his sex (male), disability,

age (born in 1950), and/or reprisal for prior protected EEO activity

under when:

1. beginning in or around December 2005, management denied his requests

for reasonable accommodation of his disability,

2. on or about March 29, 2006, management cancelled vacancy announcement

number 50-30-ARB747M6, advertising the position of Internal Revenue Agent,

GS-0512-12,

3. in April and May 2006, he was not selected for the position of Internal

Revenue Agent, GS-12 or GS-13, under eight vacancy announcements:

50-30-SP60224B, 50-30-SP60277B, 50-30-SP60405B, 50-30-ARB662M6,

50-30-ARB713M6, 50-30-ARB716M6, 50-30-ARB719M6, and 50-30-ARB720M6, and

4. effective September 21, 2006, he was removed for inability to perform

the duties of his position and unavailability to report to duty.

The FAD accepted claims 1 and 4. It advised that claim 4 would be

processed as a mixed case complaint because it was appealable to the

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). It advised that claim 1 was

inextricably linked to claim 4, and hence would be processed with claim

1 as a mixed case complaint.

The FAD dismissed claims 2 and 3 for failure to timely initiate contact

with an EEO counselor. 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). Under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(2), an agency

shall extend the 45 day time limit to initiate EEO counseling where an

individual shows that she was not notified of the time limit and was

not otherwise aware of it, or for other reasons considered by the agency

or Commission. The FAD found that the last nonselection in claims 2 and

3 occurred on May 6, 2006, but complainant did not initiate EEO contact

until November 4, 2006,1 beyond the 45 day time limit to do so.

In response to an agency inquiry concerning untimeliness, complainant

explained that he was unaware of the time limit to initiate EEO

counseling, and was not informed of it. The record contains an affidavit

by a Supervisory EEO Specialist affirming that posters entitled "Equal

Employment is the Law" with all mandatory timeframes were posted at

a specified address in at a work facility in Everett, Washington.

The accompanying poster contains the 45 day time limit to initiate

contact with an EEO counselor, as well as contact information.

It is the Commission's policy that constructive knowledge will be

imputed to an employee when an employer has fulfilled its obligation

of informing employees of their rights and obligations under EEOC's

regulations. Thompson v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05910474

(Sept. 12, 1991). The agency has the burden of producing sufficient

evidence to support its contention that it fulfilled its statutory duty

of conspicuously posting EEO information or that it otherwise notified

complainant of her rights. Examples of such support are an affidavit

by an EEO official stating that that there are unobstructed poster(s)

with EEO information, including the 45 calendar day time limit to contact

an EEO counselor posted in the facility where the complainant worked and

identifying the periods of posting accompanied by a copy of the poster;

documentation that the complainant took EEO training where the 45 calendar

day time limit was covered, etc.).

Where, as here, there is an issue of timeliness, "[a]n agency always bears

the burden of obtaining sufficient information to support a reasoned

determination as to timeliness." Guy, v. Department of Energy, EEOC

Request No. 05930703 (January 4, 1994) (quoting Williams v. Department

of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05920506 (August 25, 1992). In addition, in

Ericson v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05920623 (January 14,

1993), the Commission stated that "the agency has the burden of providing

evidence and/or proof to support its final decisions." See also Gens

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request No. 05910837 (January 31, 1992).

A review of the counselor's report indicates complainant stated that

he started reporting to Bellevue, Washington in June 2004, not Everett,

Washington. He said that on paper, he continued to report to Everett.

There are specific references in the record of complainant reporting

to Bellevue in January 2006 and July 2007. As the record does not show

complainant had been reporting to Everett since June 2004, we find that

the agency has not met its burden of showing it notified him via posters

of the time limit to initiate EEO contact. We add that the Supervisory

EEO Specialist's affidavit did not give a timeframe for when the EEO

posters were posted.

Accordingly, the FAD's dismissal of claim 3 for failure to timely

initiate contact with an EEO counselor is reversed. We do not reverse

the FAD's dismissal of claim 2, however, because it was also dismissed

by the FAD for failure to state a claim. The FAD reasoned that the

vacancy announcement was cancelled, and no selection was made. Duran

v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01952306 (July 25, 1995).

Complainant does not dispute this. Accordingly, the dismissal of claim

2 is affirmed.

We now turn to the FAD's disposition of claim 1. Previously EEOC Equal

Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614

(EEO MD-110), Chap. 4, Section II.B.4.d, pages 4-5, 4-6 (November 9,

1999) provided that where a complainant has pending a non-mixed case

complaint and the claims therein are inextricably intertwined with an

appeal on a claim that is appealable to the MSPB, the agency should file

a motion with the MSPB to consolidate the non-mixed case claim with

the mixed case appeal. Management Bulletin EEO-MB 100-1 (October 24,

2003) deleted the above provision from MD-110. It explained that the

EEOC had been informed by the MSPB that that this section improperly

advised parties with regard to MSPB jurisdiction. Specifically, it

incorrectly advised agency representatives to file a motion with an MSPB

Administrative Judge to consolidate matters which are not within their

jurisdiction with matters which are properly before the MSPB Judge.

While the MSPB has jurisdiction over the removal, it has no jurisdiction

over claim 1.2 For example, it would not provide a remedy for claims

of denial of reasonable accommodation apart from affirmative defenses

against the removal. Accordingly, the agency shall process claim 1 as

a non-mixed complaint.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to process claims 1 and 3 in accordance with 29

C.F.R. � 1614.108. Claim 1 shall be processed as a non-mixed complaint.3

The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant that it has received

the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final. The agency shall issue to complainant a copy

of the investigative file and also shall notify complainant of the

appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the

date this decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved

prior to that time. If the complainant requests a final decision without

a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60)

days of receipt of complainant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a

copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of

rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement

of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the

right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).

Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on

the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled

"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.

A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying

complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)

(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

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 (T0900)

This decision affirms the agency's final decision/action in part, but it

also requires the agency to continue its administrative processing of a

portion of your complaint. 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 on both that portion

of your complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion

of the complaint which has been remanded for continued administrative

processing. 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 your appeal with the Commission, until

such time as the agency issues its final decision on your complaint.

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

September 25, 2007

__________________

Date

1 Complainant initially contacted the EEOC, which referred him back to

the agency for EEO counseling.

2 Complainant, however, may raise the affirmative defense of disability

discrimination/denial of reasonable accommodation in any appeal with

the MSPB regarding his removal.

3 The FAD indicated the agency was processing claim 4 as a mixed case

complaint.

??

??

??

??

2

0120073209

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

6

0120073209