Mahadeo Raghunandan, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 2, 2003
01A31135_r (E.E.O.C. Dec. 2, 2003)

01A31135_r

12-02-2003

Mahadeo Raghunandan, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Mahadeo Raghunandan v. United States Postal Service

01A31135

December 2, 2003

.

Mahadeo Raghunandan,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A31135

Agency No. 4A-070-0015-01

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the agency's

decision dated October 31, 2002, dismissing his 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. and the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29

U.S.C. � 621 et seq. In his complaint, complainant alleged that he was

subjected to discrimination on the bases of national origin and age when:

As of February 2001, complainant had not been fully reimbursed for monies

inappropriately deducted from his wages after complainant received a

Letter of Demand (LOD).

The agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2),

for untimely EEO Counselor contact, and pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a)(5), for being moot. In its decision, the agency determined

that the alleged discriminatory event occurred July 7, 2000, when

complainant received the Letter of Demand. Complainant's April 6,

2001 EEO contact was therefore 224 days beyond the 45-day time limit

and was therefore untimely. The agency further found that complainant

received a payment for reimbursement on March 7, 2001, in the amount of

$180.66, which fulfilled the agency's obligations under a September 11,

2000 settlement agreement involving similarly situated letter carriers,

achieved through the agency's Carriers Dispute Resolution Team (CDRT).

Complainant's claim, the agency found, was therefore also moot.

On appeal, complainant states while he was issued a reimbursement, he has

not been reimbursed for the full amount due him. Complainant further

states that he waited a reasonable amount of time (before initiating

EEO counseling) because he was told he was receiving partial payments.

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 record reveals that on June 7, 2000, complainant was notified that

he had received a lump sum payment of $541.88, which he was not eligible

to receive. This notice advised complainant that this money would be

recovered from him through the debt collection process. While the record

is not entirely clear as to what happened next, we conclude that the lump

sum was recovered from complainant. We further surmise from references

in the record, that other employees received similar notices and were

subject to similar collection actions. We find complainant should have

reasonably suspected discrimination when he received the agency's letter

of demand on June 7, 2000. We find that complainant's EEO contact on

April 6, 2001 is untimely. Accordingly the agency's dismissal of the

complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) is proper.

We therefore AFFIRM the agency's dismissal of the complaint.

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

December 2, 2003

__________________

Date