0120080787
03-03-2008
Juanita Ragudo, Complainant, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Juanita Ragudo,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Donald C. Winter,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080787
Agency No. 076158102560
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's
decision dated November 6, 2007, dismissing her 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.
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely
EEO Counselor contact.
In her complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected to
discrimination on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity
under an EEO statute that was unspecified in the record when management
did not accord her the right to pay into a Retirement Fund and therefore
denied her retirement coverage under the Civil Service Retirement Act
when she retired on February 8, 1990.
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.
The record discloses that the alleged discriminatory event occurred
sometime prior to February 8, 1990 which is when complainant retired,
but complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until
July 10, 2007, which is well beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation
period. The Commission has consistently held that a complainant must
act with due diligence in the pursuit of his claim or the doctrine
of laches may apply. See Becker v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 01A45028 (November 18, 2004) (finding that the doctrine of
laches applied when complainant waited over two years from the date of
the alleged discriminatory events before contacting an EEO Counselor);
O'Dell v. Department of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05901130
(December 27, 1990). The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy
under which an individual's failure to pursue diligently her course of
action could bar her claim. Complainant waited more than 17 years from
the date of the alleged discriminatory event which complainant indicates
happened while she was employed until her retirement in February 1990,
before she contacted an EEO Counselor on July 10, 2007. Complainant has
failed to provide sufficient justification for extending or tolling
the time limit. Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing
complainant's complaint 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
March 3, 2008
__________________
Date
2
0120080787
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120080787