01A24455_r
08-21-2003
Mark Lazard, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Mark Lazard v. United States Postal Service
01A24455
August 21, 2003
.
Mark Lazard,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24455
Agency No. 1G-771-0064-02
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to
state a claim. In a complaint dated May 20, 2002, complainant alleged
that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of sex, disability,
age , and reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
On March 29, 2002, complainant's supervisor commented to him that
complainant should change religions because complainant was not an
honorable man, implying that complainant faked an injury on January
4, 2002.
In a final decision dated July 16, 2002, the agency found complainant's
complaint failed to state a claim because complainant failed to show that
he suffered any discipline or otherwise suffered any loss as a result of
the alleged discriminatory comment. On appeal, complainant claims that
his complaint includes the reprisal that occurred on January 4, 2002,
when he was forced to perform a task outside of his job description
for prolonged period and that the task was outside of his medical
restrictions. Complainant claims he was off work until March 19, 2002
as a result of the injuries he sustained on January 4, 2002.
On appeal, the agency argues that complainant's claim relating to his
injury of January 4, 2002 is untimely, in that complainant waited until
March 21, 2002 to request EEO counseling regarding this claim.
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under the
EEOC regulations because complainant failed to show that he suffered harm
or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for
which there is a remedy. See Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC
Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). We do not find the supervisor's
isolated remark to be either sufficiently severe or pervasive to state
a claim of harassment.
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 he was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that he did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence he was prevented
by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
We further concur with the agency and find that complainant's reprisal
claim regarding the incident on January 4, 2002 is untimely, and properly
dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2). Complainant's EEO
contact on March 21, 2002 occurred more than 45 days after the incident
on January 4, 2002. This claim is therefore properly dismissed for
untimely EEO Counselor contact.
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
August 21, 2003
__________________
Date