Robert M. Purtell, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 10, 1999
01987087 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 10, 1999)

01987087

09-10-1999

Robert M. Purtell, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Robert M. Purtell v. United States Postal Service

01987087

September 10, 1999

Robert M. Purtell, )

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Appeal No. 01987087

William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 4A-105-0090-98

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On September 30, 1998, appellant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from a final agency decision (FAD), dated August 31, 1998,

dismissing his complaint for untimely counselor contact. The Commission

accepts appellant's appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as

amended.

On April 23, 1998, appellant contacted the EEO office regarding

allegations of discrimination based on mental disability (bi-polar

disorder). Informal efforts to resolve appellant's concerns were

unsuccessful. Accordingly, appellant filed a formal complaint on June

9, 1998. The agency defined the allegations as follows:

1) On December 26, 1997, appellant was suspended;

On December 31, 1997 appellant was told to report to be interviewed by

Postal Inspectors;

On January 28, 1998 appellant was issued a Notice of Removal, effective

February 27, 1998, charging him with improper conduct.

The agency dismissed appellant's complaint pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(b). The FAD determined that the forty-five (45) day

time limitation for contacting a counselor began on February 27, 1998,

the effective date of the most recent disciplinary action, and therefore

appellant's contact was untimely.

On appeal, appellant contends that he was unaware of his right to file

an EEO complaint based on his disability, until April 23, 1998. At that

time, appellant noticed the Postmaster's EEO policy.

In response, the agency submits affidavits from the Manager of Customer

Service and an EEO Counselor/Investigator. The manager attests that

an EEO poster (#72) has been on display on the bulletin board outside

the postmaster's office, on the workroom floor "well before [appellant]

filed his complaint". The EEO Counselor attests to seeing the poster in

the lobby and on the workroom floor. A copy of the described poster,

which includes notification of the forty-five (45) day time limit,

was also provided by the agency.

In order to commence the running of the forty-five (45) day limitations

period for requesting EEO counseling, the complainant must have either

actual or constructive knowledge of the time limit. See York v. Dept. of

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05940575 (Nov. 2, 1994). It is

the Commission's policy that constructive knowledge will be imputed

to an employee when an employer has fulfilled its obligations under

EEOC Regulations for publicizing the time limits for contacting an

EEO Counselor. See Starr v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request

No. 05950455 (Sept. 28, 1995) (citing Thompson v. Dept. of the Army,

EEOC Request No. 05910474.

Based on a review of the record, the Commission finds that the appellant

had constructive knowledge of the time limitation for EEO counselor

contact. See Santiago v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950272

(July 6, 1995). The agency has provided sufficient evidence showing that

an EEO poster with applicable time limits, was present at appellant's

work location. Therefore, the Commission finds that the agency properly

dismissed the complaint for untimely EEO counselor contact pursuant to 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(b).

The agency's decision dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)

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:

September 10, 1999

__________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations