Michael W. Fontaine, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 4, 2010
0120093042 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 4, 2010)

0120093042

01-04-2010

Michael W. Fontaine, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.


Michael W. Fontaine,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Northeast Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120093042

Agency No. 4B028003109

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the

agency's decision dated June 5, 2009, 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 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation

Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 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 his

complaint, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination

on the bases of disability (seizure disorder) and reprisal for prior

protected EEO activity

1. From November 10, 2003 to June 2005, complainant was not provided a

reasonable accommodation in that he was assigned lengthy walking routes,

not allowed to take breaks and yelled at by co-workers because complainant

was making more work for them;

2. From June 2005 to February 2006, complainant was not provided a

reasonable accommodation for a wrist and shoulder condition. Complainant

alleges that on a daily basis he was driven to a relay box and made to

walk the route;

3. In June 2008, complainant alleges that he was forced to take a lower

level position as a janitor;

4. From June 2008 to January 2009, complainant was held to a higher

standard of work performance than other janitors and threatened with

discipline and harassed by co-workers;

5. On January 15, 2009, complainant was forced to resign or be fired and

6. On April 28, 2009, the agency thwarted his unemployment compensation

claim by stating that complainant voluntarily resigned.

The agency dismissed claims 1-5 for untimely EEO counselor contact.

Specifically, the agency determined that complainant contacted the EEO

counselor on March 23, 2009, in excess of the 45-day limitation period.

The agency also noted that complainant was, or should have been aware

of the time limits since EEO posters were on display at complainant's

worksite.1 The agency also concluded that the incidents described by

complainant in claims 1-5 above were isolated and discrete acts which

should have triggered complainant's awareness of the duty to seek

counseling, and therefore did not constitute a continuing violation.

On appeal, complainant's attorney continues to argue that complainant's

complaint should be analyzed under the theory of continuing violation.

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.

The Commission finds that concerning claims 1-5, complainant had or should

have had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination with respect to the

agency's alleged denial of his request for reasonable accommodation.

Here, complainant does not suggest that he was unaware of the time

limitations for counselor contact. However, complainant alleges that due

to his physical and mental disabilities he was unaware that he had been

discriminated against until he met with an attorney. Complainant has

failed to present evidence that he was so incapacitated by a physical or

mental disability that he was unable to timely seek EEO Counselor contact.

Moreover, the agency has demonstrated that complainant had constructive

knowledge of the relevant time limitations for counselor contact.

In addition, the Commission finds that the events described in claims

1-5 were of a discrete and isolated nature which should have triggered

complainant's duty to seek counseling regarding his concerns.

The record discloses that the alleged discriminatory events occurred

between November 10, 2003 and January 15, 2009, but complainant did not

initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until March 23, 2009, which is

beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation period. On appeal, complainant

has presented no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension

of the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. Accordingly, the

agency's final decision dismissing claims 1-5 as untimely is affirmed.

In claim 6, complainant alleges that the agency discriminated against

him by providing false information about his resignation in connection

with his claim for unemployment compensation. Upon review, we find

that claim 6 fails to state a claim. The Commission has long held that

a complainant cannot use the EEO process to lodge a collateral attack

on other forums. The proper forum for complainant to raise challenges

to actions which occur during the unemployment compensation process is

within that process itself. It is inappropriate now for complainant to

use the EEO process to collaterally attach the OWCP process. In that

regard we find that claim 6 was properly dismissed in accordance with EEOC

Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim.

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing the instant complaint is

affirmed for the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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

January 4, 2010

__________________

Date

1 We note here that the agency has submitted copies of the relevant EEO

posters on display at complainant's worksite as well as an affidavit

from an agency official regarding the posting of EEO posters containing

relevant information regarding time restrictions for counselor contact.

??

??

??

??

2

0120093042

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

6

0120093042