01a10162
11-24-2000
Pamela A. Dickerson, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.
Pamela A. Dickerson v. Department of Commerce
01A10162
November 24, 2000
.
Pamela A. Dickerson,
Complainant,
v.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10162
Agency No. 00-63-01377D
DECISION
The instant matter is being processed pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) entered into by the agency, the Bureau of the Census,
and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The MOU
was entered into in order to process complaints arising from the 2000
Decennial Census more effectively and efficiently.
Pursuant to the MOU, individuals file their complaints directly with
the Commission. The Commission, through its Washington, D.C. Field
Office, then conducts an early assessment of complaints and neutral
evaluation of cases. The Washington, D.C. Field Office of the Commission
establishes a record of the complaint by obtaining an affidavit from the
complainant and by contacting an agency official to obtain the necessary
information on the complaint. Based on the record established by the
Washington, D.C. Field Office, the Washington, D.C. Field Office will:
(1) notify the agency that the individual has elected not to file a
formal complaint; (2) issue a decision dismissing the complaint and
notify the complainant of his or her right to appeal the decision to
the Office of Federal Operations; (3) conduct settlement negotiations;
or (4) notify the complainant that the complaint has been accepted and
forward the complaint to the agency for further investigation.
The Commission's Washington, D.C. Field Office dismissed the instant
complaint for failure to file a timely formal complaint. In her
complaint, complainant alleged a pattern of harassment from her
supervisors that eventually forced her to resign. In its dismissal, the
Field Office found that complainant was mailed her notice of right to file
a formal complaint (�notice�) on June 13 and 28, 2000, but failed to file
her formal complaint until August 28, 2000. The Field Office presumed
that complainant received her notice within five days of its mailing.
On appeal, complainant argues that she did not receive the notice until
August 14, 2000. Complainant also notes that she received information
concerning a complainant with the same name alleging different matters,
with a different Agency Number (00-63-02366D), and residing in a different
state (Texas). Given the mix-up, complainant requests that her complaint
be reinstated for investigation.
The record includes a copy of three different notices. Two of these
notices, dated June 13, and 28, 2000, are addressed to a complainant
residing in Texas for Agency No. 00-63-02366D. The remaining notice,
dated April 28, 2000, is addressed to complainant's address of record
(in Illinois), concerns Agency No. 00-63-01377D, and involves the issues
raised by complainant. The record also contains a certified receipt
card indicating that complainant received the April 28, 2000 notice at
her address of record on May 15, 2000.
Complainant's formal complaint is dated August 26, 2000. The envelope
in which it appears to have been mailed was postmarked August 28, 2000.
On appeal, complainant states that she received the notice on August 14,
2000, but mailed the complaint on August 27, 2000.
Complainants must file their formal complaints within fifteen (15) days of
receiving the right to do so. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.106. The regulations
require the dismissal of claims that fail to comply with this time limit.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2). For timeliness purposes, complainant's
formal complaint was considered filed on the date of its postmark.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(b).
It appears that the agency did confuse two complaints filed by different
individuals sharing the same name. However, the record also indicates
that complainant received the correct notice in May 2000, but failed
to file a formal complaint for over three months. The record contains
nothing to imply that complainant received a notice on August 14, 2000.
Complainant was not prejudiced by the agency's mistake, because
the incorrect notices regarding 00-63-02366D were mailed after the
date complainant was required to file her complaint. She provides no
persuasive reasoning for her delay, and ignores the May 2000 notice in
all of her arguments. Therefore, the Commission finds that complainant
failed to comply with applicable time frames.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the dismissal is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
November 24, 2000
__________________
Date