Jonathan H. Cross, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 24, 2011
0120111256 (E.E.O.C. May. 24, 2011)

0120111256

05-24-2011

Jonathan H. Cross, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.




Jonathan H. Cross,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120111256

Agency No. 4H-370-0180-10

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the

Agency's decision dated November 17, 2010, dismissing his complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §

791 et seq.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked

as a City Carrier, T-6 at the Agency’s Kingsport Post Office facility

in Kingsport, TN. He filed a formal complaint alleging that he was

discriminated against based on his disability (associated with spouse

who had a disability) when he was terminated in May or June 2009 for

changing a date on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork.

The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to timely initiate EEO

counseling. It reasoned that Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling

until September 15, 2010, long after the 45 calendar day time limit.

In an intake form and his complaint, Complainant contended that he

could not confirm discrimination until September 2010, when he learned

of a June 2010, grievance against three managers for falsifying official

postal documents. He submitted a copy of the June 2010 grievance form,

which alleged management intentionally deleted clock rings over at

least the past 2½ years, depriving pay to carriers for work provided.

Complainant contended that the three managers were “busted” to

carrier status, not removed.

In dismissing the complaint, the Agency found that Complainant had a

reasonable suspicion of discrimination when he filed a grievance on

his removal which was denied on May 26, 2009. It also found that the

discovery of a new comparison employee does not give rise to a new claim.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Complainant filed an appeal statement with the Agency, which is included

in the record. He writes that a person needs to know of an event similar

to his own was handled differently to CLAIM discrimination (emphasis in

original), but to PROVE discrimination (emphasis in original), a person

needs to know of similar events before and after his own had different

outcomes. Complainant writes that many serious infractions occurred

before his termination, but he could not prove discrimination until

he knew about another serious event after his termination. He gives

examples of an employee who falsified his time cards to get longer

lunches, another who falsified leave documents, and a third who changed

bulk mail labels so the Agency could not determine mail was delayed.

He argues that his offense was not serious did not justify removal,

and that he was removed for missing work to care for his spouse.

In opposition to the appeal, the Agency urges the Commission to affirm

its dismissal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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) & .107(a)(2). The time limit to seek

EEO counseling shall be extended when an individual shows he did not

know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory

action or personnel action occurred. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2).

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.

Applying the above case law, we find that Complainant had a reasonable

suspicion of discrimination long prior to contacting an EEO counselor

on September 15, 2010. He filed a grievance on the matter around May

2009, believed his offense was not serious and did not justify removal,

and that he was removed for missing time from work to take care of his

wife’s disability. He also cites numerous examples of infractions by

other employees, suggesting they occurred prior to his termination and

did not result in removals. The events in the June 2010 grievance form

were supportive facts of his prior reasonable suspicion of discrimination.

Accordingly, the Agency’s decision to dismiss the complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0610)

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), at 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

77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)

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 (Z0610)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

May 24, 2011

__________________

Date

2

0120111256

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120111256