Billy F. Henderson, Complainant,v.Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 3, 2002
01A20489_r (E.E.O.C. Apr. 3, 2002)

01A20489_r

04-03-2002

Billy F. Henderson, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Billy F. Henderson v. Department of Agriculture

01A20489

April 3, 2002

.

Billy F. Henderson,

Complainant,

v.

Ann M. Veneman,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A20489

Agency No. 000812

DECISION

Upon review, the Commission finds that the complaint was properly

dismissed pursuant to EEOC Regulations.

On July 11, 2000, complainant sought EEO counseling claiming that

he had been discriminated against on the bases of age and disability.

Informal efforts to resolve his concerns were unsuccessful. Subsequently,

complainant filed a formal complaint claiming that he had been

discriminated against on the bases of age, disability, and in reprisal

for prior protected activity when:

(a) in November and December 1999, the agency denied his request to work

at home under the Flexiplace rules;

(b) on January 5, 2000, he was harassed by agents of the Office of

Inspector General;

(c) on April 22, 2000, he was forced to retire after being denied the

opportunity to work at home; and

(d) on July 11, 2000, the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP) denied

his OWCP claim after the agency failed to support his claim.

The agency issued a final decision dismissing claims (a), (b), and (c)

on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact after finding that

these claims were not raised with the EEO counselor within 45 days of

their occurrence. The agency also dismissed the entire complaint (claims

(a) - (d)) on the grounds that the complaint was untimely filed.

A review of the record persuades the Commission that claims (a), (b),

and (c) were properly dismissed for untimely EEO Counselor contact.

The incidents raised in those claims purportedly occurred in November

and December 1999; January 2000; and April 2000. Therefore, by the time

complainant raised these incidents with the EEO Counselor on July 11,

2000, the 45-day time limit for initial EEO Counselor contact had expired.

On appeal, no persuasive arguments or evidence have been presented to

warrant an extension of the time limit for initiating EEO contact.

We also agree with the dismissal of claim (d). However, the Commission

determines that claim (d) is more properly analyzed in terms of whether

it states a claim. In claim (d), complainant claimed that on July 22,

2000, his OWCP claim was denied. Complainant further claimed that this

denial was the result of the agency's lack of support to his claim.

The Commission has consistently held that an agency opposition to an OWCP

claim does not affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment so as

to render a person aggrieved. See Hall v. Department of the Treasury,

EEOC Appeal No. 01945595 (February 23, 1995). We have also held that

an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral

attack on another proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC

Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998). The proper forum for contesting

the outcome of an OWCP claim is with the Department of Labor. Foster v.

United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950693 (May 16, 1996).

Based on the foregoing, we find that claim (d) fails to state a claim

under our regulations.

Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing claims (a) - (d)

was proper and 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

April 3, 2002

Date