0520160301
07-21-2016
Sidney S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Sidney S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 0520160301
Appeal No. 0120160796
Agency No. 4K-200-0127-15
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160796 (March 18, 2016). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(c).
Complainant filed a formal complaint wherein he claimed that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of his race (African-American), sex (male), color (black), age (47), and in reprisal for his prior EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., when on November 13, 2014, he was placed on Emergency Placement in an off-duty status and on August 20, 2015, management refused to meet with him to discuss the situation concerning his ex-wife, an Agency employee.
On December 21, 2014, the Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) on the grounds of failure to initiate contact with an EEO Counselor in a timely manner. The Agency reasoned that the matter at issue was Complainant's placement in an emergency placement status on November 13, 2014. Complainant stated that he was falsely accused by his ex-wife of attacking her. The Agency stated that Complainant's contact of an EEO Counselor on August 22, 2015, was 282 days after he became aware of his placement in an emergency placement status, well beyond the expiration of the 45-day limitation period for contacting an EEO Counselor. Complainant appealed.
In Complainant v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160796 (March 18, 2016), the Commission affirmed the dismissal of the Agency's final decision. The Commission stated that a fair reading of the record reflects that the alleged discriminatory event occurred on November 13, 2014. The Commission found that Complainant's contact of an EEO Counselor on August 22, 2015, was after the expiration of the 45-day limitation period. The Commission stated that Complainant had or should have had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination regarding his claim more than 45 days prior to his initial contact with an EEO Counselor. The Commission reasoned that the purported Agency failure to discuss the situation concerning his ex-wife was merely an expansion of the precipitating event in November 2014.
On request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that he initiated contact with an EEO Counselor in a timely manner. Complainant maintains that his August 22, 2015, EEO contact was in response to the Agency's failure to meet with him on August 20, 2015, to discuss the situation involving his ex-wife, also an Agency employee. Complainant indicates that he was concerned about the Agency providing him with a safe work environment in light of his ex-wife's conviction for second degree assault against him. According to Complainant, his placement in an emergency placement status was resolved in a separate decision in January 2015, which included an administrative leave full pay adjustment processed in March 2015.
The Commission previously determined that the alleged discriminatory event was Complainant's placement in an emergency placement status on November 13, 2014. We agree that this is the alleged discriminatory event at issue and that the Agency's purported failure to discuss the situation concerning Complainant's ex-wife was an expansion of the precipitating event in November 2014. We agree with our previous decision that Complainant should have had a reasonable suspicion of discrimination regarding his emergency placement more than 45 days prior to his initial contact of an EEO Counselor. Therefore, we find that Complainant's EEO Counselor contact on August 22, 2015, was untimely.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160796 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
7/21/2016
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520160301
2
0520160301