01a01855
07-13-2000
Connie Smalls, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Connie Smalls v. Department of the Army
01A01855
July 13, 2000
Connie Smalls, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A01855
) Agency No. FO9908J0070
Louis Caldera, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Army, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision dated November 16, 1999, dismissing her 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. <1> The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
The record reveals that on July 26, 1999, complainant filed a formal
complaint claiming that she was the victim of harassment and unlawful
employment discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity.
On November 16, 1999, the agency issued a final decision dismissing the
present complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact and for failure
to state a claim. Therein, the agency defined complainant's claims as
follows:
Continuing harassment and discrimination by not thoroughly investigating
AWOL charge or proposed suspension charge/reprimand, and by not
preventing my supervisor from harassing and retaliating against me; and
Not taking any action when your union representative showed biased
behavior towards you.
With regard to claim one, the agency found that the alleged discriminatory
incident occurred on March 23, 1999, and complainant's initial EEO
Counselor contact on June 23, 1999, was more than forty-five days after
the alleged incident occurred. With respect to claim two, the agency
found that it was outside the purview of the EEO statutes and, therefore,
failed to state a claim.
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 Howard v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). 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.
In the present case, the Commission finds that the agency properly
dismissed claim one for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The record
reveals that complainant received a notice of suspension on March
23, 1999, after her supervisor purportedly conducted an investigation
concerning her charge of AWOL. On June 23, 1999, complainant initiated
contact with an EEO Counselor concerning the suspension. Clearly,
complainant initiated contact outside the forty-five day limitations
period. Furthermore, on appeal, complainant has not presented any
evidence or argument that would justify either extending or waiving the
limitations period. Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss claim
one for untimely EEO Counselor contact was proper and is AFFIRMED.
The Commission has 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);
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). In the present case, complainant
alleges that no action was taken when her union representative showed
biased behavior towards her. The proper forum for complainant to have
raised her dissatisfaction with her union representation is with the
union, not through an EEO complaint. Accordingly, the agency's decision
dismissing this claim for failure to state a claim was proper and is
AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
July 13, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________ __________________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in
the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where
applicable, in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended,
may also be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.