Timothy DeHoff, Appellant,v.Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 4, 1999
01983706 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 4, 1999)

01983706

06-04-1999

Timothy DeHoff, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Timothy DeHoff v. Social Security Administration

01983706

June 4, 1999

Timothy DeHoff, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01983706

v. ) Agency No. 98-0297-SSA

)

Kenneth S. Apfel, )

Commissioner, )

Social Security Administration, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final agency

decision (FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. and

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �791

et seq. The final agency decision was dated March 6, 1998. The appeal

was postmarked on April 9, 1998. The timely<1> appeal is accepted in

accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001, as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed an allegation

in appellant's complaint for untimely contact with an EEO Counselor and

untimely filing of the formal complaint.

BACKGROUND

Appellant initially contacted an EEO Counselor on September 11, 1997

alleging discrimination on the bases of physical disability (disabled

veteran), mental disability (alcoholism), sex (male), race (White) and

age (44) when a member of management disclosed the details of a strictly

confidential matter that appellant had discussed with his management team.

Appellant became aware of the disclosure on May 28, 1997. Appellant filed

a formal complaint on February 2, 1998. The agency rendered a decision

in a FAD dated March 6, 1998. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved

person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of

the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or within 45 days of

the effective date of the personnel action. The Commission has adopted

a "reasonable suspicion" standard (as opposed to a "supportive facts"

standard) for determining whether contact with an EEO Counselor is timely.

Ball v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05880247 (July 6, 1988).

Under this standard, the regulatory limitations period "is not triggered

until complainant reasonably suspects discrimination, but before all the

facts that would support a charge of discrimination have become apparent."

Bracken v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900065 (March 29,

1990).

In the instant case, appellant reasonably suspected discrimination on May

28, 1997 when he became aware of the disclosure. He did not, however,

contact an EEO Counselor until September 11, 1997, a date more than 3

months after appellant reasonably suspected discrimination. We find,

therefore, that appellant's EEO Counselor contact was untimely.<2>

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and 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. 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 (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:

June 4, 1999

______________ ___________________________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 The agency did not supply a copy of a certified mail return receipt or

any other material capable of establishing the date appellant received

the FAD. Since the agency failed to submit evidence of the date of

receipt, the Commission presumes that appellant's appeal was filed within

thirty (30) days of receipt of the agency's final decision. See 29 C.F.R.

�1614.402(a).

2 Since we agree with the agency's decision that appellant's

EEO Counselor contact was untimely, it is unnecessary to address whether

the filing of his formal complaint was also untimely.