01A23032_r
08-13-2002
Tamara M. Crawford, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tamara M. Crawford v. United States Postal Service
01A23032
August 13, 2002
.
Tamara M. Crawford,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23032
Agency No. 4C-150-0006-02
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency
decision pertaining to her 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. The Commission accepts the appeal
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
On September 21, 2001, complainant contacted the EEO office claiming
that she was discriminated against when, effective July 28, 2001, she
was unassigned and forced to go to the Tour 3 operation in the CFS Unit.
Informal efforts to resolve complainant's concerns were unsuccessful.
Subsequently, complainant filed a formal complaint based on sex.
On April 10, 2002, the agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint
on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact. The agency found
that complainant did not contact an EEO Counselor until approximately
fifty-five days after the allegedly discriminatory event that occurred
on July 28, 2001. The agency also noted that EEO posters, describing
the forty-five day time limit, are on display in the CFS Unit.
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1) requires that complaints of
discrimination should be brought to the attention of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Counselor within forty-five (45) days of the date of the
matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel
action, within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of the action.
The Commission has adopted a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed
to a "supportive facts" standard) to determine when the forty-five (45)
day limitation period is triggered. See Howard v. Department of the
Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970852 (February 11, 1999). Thus, the time
limitation is not triggered until
a complainant reasonably suspects discrimination, but before all the
facts that support a charge of discrimination have become apparent.
EEOC Regulations provide that the agency or the Commission shall extend
the time limits when the individual shows that she was not notified of the
time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that she did not know
and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or
personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence she was prevented
by circumstances beyond her control from contacting the Counselor within
the time limits, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or the Commission.
Here, the record indicates that complainant waited beyond the forty-five
day time limitation to contact the EEO Counselor on September 21,
2001, regarding an event that occurred on July 28, 2001. On appeal,
complainant disputes the agency's assertion that EEO posters are on
display in the CFS Unit. However, she does not contend that she herself
was unaware of the forty-five day time limit. Rather, she notes that
"I have worked in the unit informing employees of their rights in the
process of filing a compliant with the local EEO office." Additionally,
she argues that in the time she took she "talked to a counselor
and gathered all of the necessary facts . . . to file a complete and
accurate case." The Commission, however, has found that, because the
limitation period for contacting an EEO Counselor is triggered by the
reasonable suspicion standard, waiting until one has "supporting facts"
or "proof" of discrimination before initiating a complaint can result in
untimely Counselor contact. See Bracken v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05900065 (March 29, 1990). Therefore, we find that
complainant has not provided sufficient justification for tolling or
extending the time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor.
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint was proper
and is hereby 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
August 13, 2002
__________________
Date