Ronald Shinoskie, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 15, 2007
0120064934 (E.E.O.C. May. 15, 2007)

0120064934

05-15-2007

Ronald Shinoskie, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Ronald Shinoskie,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200649341

Agency No. 4C-430-0069-06

DECISION

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

decision dated July 21, 2006, 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. Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's

complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2).

During the relevant period, complainant was employed as a Letter Carrier

at an Ohio facility of the agency. On March 31, 2006, complainant

initiated contact with an EEO Counselor alleging that the agency

discriminated against him based on race (Polish & American Indian) and age

(over 40) when it did not pay a medical bill, from a June 5, 2002 medical

visit, until March 30, 2006. Complainant stated that agency management

instructed him to seek medical attention following an on-the-job

car accident so it is responsible for the resulting medical bill.

Complainant stated further that the agency failed to pay the bill in a

timely manner and a debt collection agency communicated with him about the

medical bill numerous times between 2002 and the agency's payment in 2006.

He stated that the company threatened him continuously. He added that

he attempted to resolve the matter with agency management consistently

during the four year period, to no avail. In a formal complaint dated

June 28, 2006, complainant reiterated the above allegation.

In its July 21, 2006 final decision, the agency dismissed complainant's

complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact. Specifically, the

agency stated that complainant was fully aware that the agency was

responsible for the medical bill at issue and had not paid the bill in

2003, 2004, or 2005. The agency added that complainant is familiar

with the administrative EEO process as he has prior EEO activity and

there is contact information and statutory time-frames displayed on

common area bulletin boards. In addition, the agency dismissed the

instant complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), stating that

complainant incurred an on-the-job injury and submitted a related claim

to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), which was denied,

and that he now tries to launch a collateral attack against the OWCP

process with the claim herein.

Complainant filed the instant appeal. On appeal, complainant stated

that, in June 2005, his manager (S1) was informed that she could issue

a no-fee money order to pay the 2002 medical bill but she did not do so

until a year later. Complainant explained that discrimination was not

apparent to him until S1 paid the bill on March 31, 2006 and his initial

EEO contact is within 45 days of that date.

The record discloses that the alleged discriminatory event occurred

throughout 2003, 2004, and 2005 and complainant was aware of the agency's

nonpayment due to the debt collector's persistent contact, but complainant

did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until March 31, 2006.

We find that complainant's initial EEO contact is beyond the statutory

forty-five (45) day limitation period and that, on appeal, complainant

has presented no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension

of the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. We find no need

to address the agency's alternate dismissal basis. 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

May 15, 2007

__________________

Date

1 Due to a new Commission data system, the instant case has been

redesignated with the above-referenced appeal number.

??

??

??

??

2

0120064934

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120064934