Suzanne Pyun, Complainant,v.Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 2, 2003
01A31771 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 2, 2003)

01A31771

07-02-2003

Suzanne Pyun, Complainant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Suzanne Pyun v. Social Security Administration

01A31771

July 2, 2003

.

Suzanne Pyun,

Complainant,

v.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A31771

Agency No. 03-0080-SSA

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's December 19,

2002 decision dismissing claims 1 and 2 of her complaint for untimely

EEO Counselor contact pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), and

claims 2-5 pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(4), for electing to

pursue these matters under the negotiated grievance procedure. In her

complaint, filed on November 20, 2003, complainant alleged that she was

discriminated against on the bases of race (Korean) and national origin

(Korean) and subjected to a hostile work environment when:

1. On May 2, 2002, complainant's District Manager remarked that although

he wanted complainant to be a good Claims Representative, complainant's

managers and her supervisor stated that she was not a good person and

that her co-workers hated to work with her. The District Manager also

stated that he would tell managers who contacted him for a reference

that complainant was not a good person.

2. On June 3, 2002, an Interviewing Behavior memorandum was placed in

complainant's SF-7B Extension File for six months.

3. On August 29, 2002 and October 4, 2002, the District Manager told

complainant that he had the NE Philadelphia District Office and he did

not need a Korean bilingual Claims Representative.

4. On September 2, 2002, the Assistant District Manager failed to

provide assistance and support to complainant after she became involved

in a dispute with an angry claimant.

5. On September 13, 2002, complainant learned that the District Manager

was the cause of her not being promoted to the Claims Representative

position as an outside hire in the Glen Burnie District Office.

Claims 2-5

The record indicates that complainant, previously filed a grievance,

Step 2, on September 26, 2002. Article 18, Section 6 of the bargaining

agreement reflects that allegations of discrimination can be raised.

Upon review, the Commission finds that claims 2-5 are the same matters

raised in complainant's grievance, i.e., concerning a hostile work

environment, a SF-7B file, the denial of promotion, and harassment from

her management. Complainant specifically identified the sections in the

bargaining agreement that she believed were violated and these sections

address the issues raised in claims 2-5. Because she elected to pursue

claims 2-5 pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement

that permits allegations of discrimination to be raised, complainant

could not thereafter file a discrimination complaint on the same matter.

Complainant's subsequent withdrawal of the grievance on October 9, 2002,

does not rescind her election. Once complainant made her election, she

could not file a discrimination complaint on the same matter. Therefore,

the Commission finds that the agency's dismissal of claims 2-5 was proper.

Claim 1

The record discloses that claim 1 occurred on May 2, 2002, but complainant

did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until September 24, 2002,

which is beyond the forty-five (45) day limitation period. The contact

was therefore untimely. Although on appeal, complainant asserted that

she was not aware of the limitation period, complainant had constructive

knowledge of the applicable time limit. The record contains a February

4, 2003 statement from the District Manager which indicates that the EEO

poster was displayed on a bulletin board outside the lunchroom and was

on display at the time of the alleged discrimination. The statement

also indicates that although a new poster was displayed by the agency

in October 2003, the previous poster contained the same basic information.

Accordingly, the agency's decision is hereby AFFIRMED.<1>

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

July 2, 2003

__________________

Date

1The Commission need not address the agency's

dismissal of claim 2 on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact

because the claim was dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(4).