Opinion ID: 346586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: supervisory and managerial positions are restricted to males;

Text: E. concentrating female employees in clerical, lower-paying jobs, e. g., there are few male employees in the typing pool, while concentrating male employees in higher-paying, more rewarding job categories; F. generally, female employees are discriminated against in all terms and conditions of employment. I feel that female employees are discriminated against within all the divisions of the VA Center. 9. WHAT CORRECTIVE ACTION DO YOU WANT TAKEN IN YOUR BEHALF ON YOUR COMPLAINT? A. I believe that I should be awarded back pay, which would be the difference between what I have earned and what I would have earned, but for the discrimination. B. I believe that I should be promoted to GS-11; and be assigned to the position of 'Adjudicator' and be given immediate special training for that position. This complaint was prepared at a time when the plaintiff had at least some assistance from counsel experienced in such cases. However, the EEO Counselor's formal report of January 17, 1973, apparently obtained by the plaintiff only after suit was brought in the district court, lists only three complaints in paragraph B, with the latest incident described transpiring before the plaintiff saw the EEO Counselor in November 1972. The plaintiff's allegation of December 6 is not included in the complaint section of the report, but paragraph C6, describing the informal investigation conducted, indicates the December 6th allegation was an effective claim as of December 18, 1972. See also paragraph D, which outlines matters discussed at the final hearing, but see paragraph E, conclusion. Paragraph A shows that from the very beginning of her initiation of the agency procedure, the plaintiff alleged that discriminatory acts directed against her were a continuing state of affairs. In short, in regard to that which was complained of and investigated, neither document is a model of clarity; both contain material that would support a conclusion either way concerning the question of her continued assertion of the December 6th allegation as an effective claim. Paragraph D of the January 17th report indicates that it was not until after December 18th that the EEO Counselor apprised the plaintiff of the timeliness requirements under 5 C.F.R. § 713.214(a)(1)(i). We note that the VA's letter of February 16, 1973, to the plaintiff, rejecting her claim because of its untimeliness, apparently referred only to the incidents described in the three complaint paragraphs of the Counselor's formal report as outlined above; this letter also made reference to a fifteen-day limitation on filing the initial complaint with the EEO Counselor a requirement which was superseded in October 1972.