John T. Miller, Complainant,v.Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 20, 2004
01A41485_r (E.E.O.C. Jul. 20, 2004)

01A41485_r

07-20-2004

John T. Miller, Complainant, v. Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


John T. Miller v. Department of the Air Force

01A41485

July 20, 2004

.

John T. Miller,

Complainant,

v.

Dr. James G. Roche,

Secretary,

Department of the Air Force,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A41485

Agency No. 5B0M0202L04

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated November 25, 2003<1>, dismissing his complaints 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. In his

complaints, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination

on the bases of race, color, and reprisal for prior EEO activity, when:

1. On May 14, 2002, complainant was not selected for the position of

Operations Support Officer, GS-0301-13.

On June 4, 2002, complainant was told he would be fired if he interfered

with a Military Equal Opportunity investigation.

In June 2002, White employees under complainant's supervision received

pre-complaint counseling from Air Force Reserve Command, while complainant

had received counseling from local EEO counselors regarding his prior

complaint.

Between May 14, 2002 and August 28, 2002, S1 gave S2 negative information

about complainant.

Beginning on August 28, 2002, S2 issued a memorandum regarding "Duty

Assignment Changes" which required S2 to monitor complainant's supervisory

duties.

6. On April 30, 2003, complainant received a performance appraisal

with ratings of "Above Fully Successful" and better, but complainant

did not receive a performance award.<2>

In its decision, the agency dismissed claims (1), (2), and (3), pursuant

to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor contact.

The agency also dismissed claim (3) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(8)

on the grounds that this claim alleges dissatisfaction with the processing

of complainant's prior complaint, agency case number 5BOM2001. The agency

further dismissed claims all claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2)

for untimely filing of the formal complaints.

Untimely EEO Counselor Contact - Claims 1, 2, and 3

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.

The agency found that complainant first sought EEO counseling regarding

claims (1), (2), and (3) on October 9, 2002, which is beyond the 45-day

time limit for initial EEO Counselor contact.

On appeal, complainant states that he consulted with the EEO counselor on

several occasions in May 2002 (regarding complainant's 2002 performance

appraisal<3>) and that the EEO Counselor tried to discuss complainant's

related concerns with agency management during informal pre-complaint

counseling between June and September 2002 without success. Thereafter,

complainant states he filed his formal complaint on October 9, 2002.

On appeal, the agency submits two similar affidavits, dated November 18,

2003 and February 24, 2004, from the EEO Counselor each of which contains

an account of the procedural history of complainant's instant complaints.

In the affidavit dated February 24, 2004, the Counselor states that

complainant first contacted him on October 9, 2002 regarding the events

described in claims (1) - (5). We therefore find dismissal of claims (1)

- (3), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor

contact is proper.

Untimely Complaint - Claim 6

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) states, in

pertinent part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint which fails to

comply with the applicable time limits contained in 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106,

which, in turn, requires the filing of a formal complaint within fifteen

(15) days of receiving notice of the right to do so.

The agency determined that complainant received the notice regarding

his right to file a formal complaint on August 28, 2003 (agency number

5B0M0303). In support, the agency relies on an affidavit of the EEO

Counselor which states that the notice was hand delivered to complainant.

Complainant denies ever receiving the notice on the date stated by

the EEO Counselor. The agency states that the complaint was filed on

November 1, 2003.

The Commission finds that the evidence is insufficient to show that

complainant received the notice of the right to file a complaint on August

28, 2003, or more than 15 days prior to the filing of his complaint.

The agency failed to specifically identify any document in the record

showing receipt of the notice on August 28, 2003. Therefore, we can

not find that the complaint was untimely filed.

Failure to State a Claim - Claims 4 and 5

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in

relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to

state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved

employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been

discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,

sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103,

.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined

an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with

respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

We find claims (4) and (5) fail to state a claim in that complainant has

failed to show how he suffered any injury as a result of the alleged

discriminatory actions. Complainant has not alleged that he suffered

any lost wages, was denied any privilege or was otherwise harmed by

the events described in claims (4) and (5). Further, when viewed in

the context of complainant's other claims, we find claims (4) and (5)

fail to state an overall claim of harassment. We therefore find claims

(4) and (5) are properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)

for failure to state a claim.

We therefore AFFIRM the agency's dismissal of claims (1), (2), (3), (4),

and (5). We REVERSE the agency's dismissal of claim (6). Claim (6)

is REMANDED to the agency for further processing as directed herein.

ORDER (E0900)

The agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with

29 C.F.R. � 1614.108. 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

July 20, 2004

__________________

Date

1The agency's final decision fails to list

the agency docket numbers to which it pertains. However, agency case

numbers 5B0M0202, 5B0M0301, 5B0M0302 and 5B0M0303 appear in the record

submitted by the agency on appeal, associated with the instant complaints.

The agency's statement on appeal lists 5B0M0202L04 as the agency's AFCARO

Docket Number.

2We have renumbered complainant's claims for easier reference.

3We speculate from the record that complainant's prior complaint, agency

case number 5BOM2001, filed June 12, 2002, concerned his appraisal for

the rating period ending March 31, 2002.