Victoria Alvaradov.United States Postal Service 01A45238 November 8, 2004 . Victoria Alvarado, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 8, 2004
01a45238_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 8, 2004)

01a45238_r

11-08-2004

Victoria Alvarado v. United States Postal Service 01A45238 November 8, 2004 . Victoria Alvarado, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Victoria Alvarado v. United States Postal Service

01A45238

November 8, 2004

.

Victoria Alvarado,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A45238

Agency No. 1F-941-0035-04

DECISION

Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency's decision dated

July 22, 2004, dismissing complainant's complaint due to untimely EEO

Counselor contact is proper pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2).

In her complaint, complainant, a former employee, alleged discrimination

on a continuing basis since March 2004, in that the Postal Service

denied her request to rehire her as a transitional or casual employee.

The agency, in its decision, stated that on October 8, 2003, complainant

was given a letter that they did not have a suitable job available for

her, and offered a Rehabilitation Program with the Department of Labor.

In that letter, the agency noted that complainant was separated from the

agency on September 6, 2003, as a non-career (transitional) employee.

The agency also stated in its decision that complainant's initial contact

with an EEO Counselor with regard to her complaint on March 24, 2004,

was beyond the 45-day time limit set by the regulations.

On appeal, complainant contends that in March 2004, a meeting was held

with the Rehabilitation Program and she was told that the agency had a

night shift position available for her in November 2003, but the position

was never offered to her. The Commission finds that complainant should

have reasonably suspected discrimination when she received the October 8,

2003 letter informing her of the unavailability of a position within

the agency. See Ball v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05880247 (July 6, 1988). Complainant did not contact an EEO

Counselor until March 24, 2004. Based on the foregoing, the Commission

finds that complainant has failed to present adequate justification to

warrant an extension of the applicable time limit for contacting an EEO

Counselor. Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing the complaint

is 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

November 8, 2004

__________________

Date

1Although the agency dismissed the complaint on the alternative

grounds for stating the same claim that has been decided by the

agency, we need not discuss this alternative reason for dismissal

in this decision.