EEOC Appeal 2020000753

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Walter W,1
Complainant,
v.
Ryan D. McCarthy,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000753
Agency No. ARCCAD19JUL02556
DECISION
Complainant timely appealed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or
“Commission”), from the Agency’s September 11, 2019 dismissal of his 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Aircraft Engine
Mechanic Supervisor, WS-10, at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (“CCAD”) DEP (AMCC-EPD-
C) located in Corpus Christi, Texas.
On August 28, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him
to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American) and age (55) when:
a. 	On July 20, 2019, he was denied an appropriate bonus paid to other similarly
situated supervisors when his Director decided to pay him over $200.00 less than
he gave to non-African American supervisors,
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.

2020000753	2
b. 	In mid-May 2019, he was not interviewed for the position of Depot Production
Manager, GS-1610-13, (Job Announcement No. WTAA194295810179), and,
c. 	On May 27, 2019, he was not selected for the position of Depot Production
Manager, GS-1610-13, (Job Announcement No. WTAA194295810179).
The Agency dismissed Claim A pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a), noting that this claim was
not brought to an EEO Counselor prior to filing a formal complaint, and it was not like or related
to a matter that has been brought to the attention of an EEO Counselor. The Agency dismissed
Claims B and C pursuant to § 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The instant
appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In relevant part, 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2) states that an agency shall dismiss a complaint or a
portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in § 1614.105.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1), an aggrieved person must initiate contact with an EEO
Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a
personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2) the agency or the Commission may extend the time limit if
complainant establishes that he or she was not aware of the time limit, did not know and reasonably
should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite
due diligence he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting
the EEO Counselor within the lime limit, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency
or Commission.
With respect to Claim A, a review of the record indicates that Complainant did not raise the
allegation in Claim A with the EEO Counselor. The August 12, 2019 “Notice of Right to File a
Formal Complaint” makes no reference to the allegation in Claim A. The only claims identified in
the Notice are the allegations in Claims B and C. The Notice specifies that the issues alleged in
Claims B and C were the only issues Complainant raised with the EEO Counselor during the final
counseling interview on August 9, 2019. The Notice states, in bold letters, “[t]he formal complaint
must be specific and contain only the issues specifically discussed with the EEO counselor.”
Additionally, Claim A cannot be included as part of Claims B and C as a “like and related” matter,
without first being raised with an EEO Counselor, because it concerns a discrete employment
action.
With respect to Claims B and C, Complainant first contacted an EEO Counselor on July 18, 2019,
over 45 days after May 27, 2019, the most recent of the two alleged discriminatory acts. 	The
record indicates that Complainant was aware of the limitation period.

2020000753	3
On appeal, Complainant has presented no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an
extension of the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. 	Instead, Complainant raises a
new claim of reprisal. Specifically, Complainant’s Director, who is named in the instant complaint,
allegedly began subjecting Complainant to “unprecedented expectations,” assigning new reporting
requirements, and “singling him out” from the other supervisors.
We remind the Agency that under Commission policy, a complainant is protected from any
retaliatory discrimination that is reasonably likely to deter… complainant or others from engaging
in protected activity.” Maclin v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120070788 (Mar.
29, 2007) Additionally, agencies have a continuing duty to promote the full realization of equal
employment opportunity in its policies and practices. See 29 C.F.R. §1614.101; Binseel v. Dep’t
of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970584 (Oct. 8, 1998) However, Complainant’s reprisal claim
is not at issue in the complaint before us, so it will not be adjudicated in this decision.
If he has not done so already, Complainant may raise his new claim of reprisal in a separate
complaint by contacting an EEO Counselor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 	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 agency’s request must be submitted

2020000753	4
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)
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 (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
September 11, 2020
Date