Opinion ID: 773406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fitzgerald's Administrative Complaint

Text: 18 On October 24, 1997, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (2000), which deal with employment discrimination claims by federal employees, Fitzgerald contacted a Postal Service Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Counselor in the USPS Human Resources Division (HRD) to complain of Gerling's conduct. In early November, she completed an Information for Precomplaint Counseling form on which she summarily described her complaints about Gerling's unconsented touchings, suggestive remarks, and sexual overtures, and stated that [w]hen I rebuffed him he retaliated. Fitzgerald filed under oath a formal administrative complaint (EEO Complaint) with HRD in February 1998 (and later filed a more detailed supplemental complaint, also under oath), alleging numerous acts of discrimination based on [Fitzgerald's] sex, continuing sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment (EEO Complaint ¶ 20). The EEO Complaint alleged that Gerling had engaged in a campaign of sexual discrimination and harassment against Fitzgerald (id. ¶ 8), and that Fitzgerald had rejected Mr. Gerling's unsolicited and unwelcome advances (id. ¶ 9). It alleged that 19 [b]ased on this rejection, Mr. Gerling embarked on a campaign of harassment and abuse against complainant. This intensive, severe, ongoing harassment and abuse was a direct result of complainant's sex and in retaliation for her rejection of his unwanted sexual advances. 20 (Id. ¶ 10.)The EEO Complaint also alleged that Postmaster King had repeatedly been made aware of Gerling's harassing and discriminatory conduct and had failed to take any steps to halt that conduct. 21 HRD, relying on 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (federal employee, before bringing a Title VII action against a federal agency, generally must contact an EEO counselor at the agency within 45 days after the allegedly discriminatory action occurred), and id. § 1614.107 (2000) (agency generally must dismiss claims of violations outside the 45-day period), rejected as time-barred Fitzgerald's complaints with respect to any events alleged to have occurred earlier than 45 days prior to her first contact with the EEO Counselor. Thus, HRD refused to consider Fitzgerald's claims that Gerling had sexually harassed her prior to April 1995 and that he thereafter had subjected her to a hostile work environment prior to September 9, 1997. HRD stated that 22 [a]lthough more than one of the acts fell within the regulatory 45-day limitation period as a continuing violation, the record indicates you had prior knowledge or suspicion of discrimination months before you sought EEO counseling in that your attorney representative's correspondence states postal service management has been made repeatedly aware of this situation. Further, a reasonable person in your position would have suspected discrimination months, even years, before you initiated EEO counseling on October 24, 1997. 23 (Letter from HRD to Fitzgerald dated March 27, 1998 (HRD Letter), at 2.) HRD stated that it would investigate Fitzgerald's complaints of hostile work environment during the period September 9 (45 days prior to counselor contact) through September 25, 1997 (last day worked). (Id. at 3.) The letter advised Fitzgerald of her right, within 90 days, to pursue the rejected claims in federal court.