Court Opinion

ID: 9843219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:30:57.048486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:02.431429
License: Public Domain

KORMAN, District Judge,
dissenting in part
The record in this case is summarized extensively in the majority opinion. The case involves a complaint alleging sexual harassment engaged in by Timonthy Ger-ling, the supervisor of Lisa Fitzgerald at the Lake Placid Post Office. This conduct ended shortly after Fitzgerald complained to the Postmaster. Nevertheless, she alleges that it was followed almost immediately by two and one-half years of a hostile work environment created by Gerling and directed at Fitzgerald solely because she refused his advances.
The principal issue on this appeal is whether these claims are time-barred un-. der regulations formulated initially by the Civil Service Commission and later by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(b). Specifically, when Congress extended the coverage of Title VII to federal employees in 1972, it conferred on the Civil Service Commission the power to enforce the mandate that all personnel actions affecting federal employees, including those of the Postal Service, should “be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). The administrative enforcement powers included the issuance of “such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities under this section.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(b).
The administrative regulations set out a carefully considered scheme to encourage employees to file discrimination complaints before positions on both sides have hardened. They provide that a person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against for impermissible reasons, including sex, must first seek counseling from the alleged discriminating agency before even filing a formal complaint with the agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a). This informal counseling must be sought with an EEO counselor “within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). The failure to comply with this rule precludes the filing of a formal complaint with the agency, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), and precludes a discrimination claim in federal court. Briones v. Runyon, 101 F.3d 287, 289-90 (2d Cir.1996).
When it was originally promulgated by the Civil Service Commission, the period within which EEO counseling had to be sought was 30 days. In 1992, the EEOC, to which the rule-making power was later delegated, explained why it had rejected suggestions that it adopt the 180-day period applicable to private sector administrative complaints:
We do not believe that the analogy between the private sector filing period and the federal sector counseling time limit is apt. Private employees must actually file a complaint within 180 days, not just contact an EEOC office about doing so. Private employees may have to travel many miles or use the mail to file a charge with EEOC while federal employees only have to contact a counselor by telephone or often merely visit a counselor who is located in the same work place in order to comply with the time limit. Moreover, a comparison of private sector charge filings and federal sector complaint filings indicates that federal employees file complaints at a rate three time greater than private sec*369tor employees file charges. Further, the earliest possible contact with a counselor aids resolution of disputes because positions on both sides have not yet hardened. Therefore, we believe a significant lengthening of the pre-complaint period is not justified.
57 Fed.Reg. 12634, 12634-35 (April 10, 1992) (hereinafter “EEOC Explanation of Final Rule”).
Nevertheless, the EEOC expanded the time limits for seeking counseling from 30 to 45 days. In so doing, it observed that “Part 1614 ... also requires an agency to extend the time limit for contacting a counselor where warranted by the circumstances.” Id. at 12635. The circumstances are extremely generous and are “uncommon to statutes of limitations.” Pauling v. Secretary of Dep’t of Interior, 160 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir.1998). They expressly provide for extending the 45 day period (1) if the aggrieved employee was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, (2) if the aggrieved employee did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, (3) if the aggrieved employee was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting the counselor within the time limits, or (4) “for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the Commission.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). The second ground for extending the 45 day period, which is implicated here, was also added in 1992.
Plaintiff in this case did not timely seek EEO counseling for a significant part of the time period that she endured the sexual harassment and the hostile environment alleged in the complaint. Nonetheless, the Postal Service considered whether an extension was justified under the “[Equal Employment Opportunity] Commission continuing violation theory.” This theory covers conduct occurring over a period of time under circumstances in which the discriminatory animus of an employer may not be apparent until some time has passed. Conduct occurring before an employee could reasonably have understood its underlying motivation is not time-barred, even if it took place more than 45 days before EEO counseling was sought. This theory could not avail plaintiff here because the record was clear that she was aware of the reason Gerling was mistreating her. Hence, the Postal Service declined to extend the 45-day period to acts occurring prior to the commencement of that time period. It did, however, consider and reject on the merits the claim that the conduct alleged within the 45-day period constituted a hostile work environment.
The district court here accepted the position of the Postal Service and granted summary judgment. The majority affirms the judgment in part and reverses it in part. I concur in this disposition except to the extent that it holds that plaintiff is entitled to recover for acts that constituted a hostile work environment and that took place more than 45 days prior to the time plaintiff sought EEO counseling. I am unable to join in that part of the holding, because it effectively nullifies the 45-day rule and the administrative scheme of which it is a part, and because the rule adopted by the majority is unsound and inconsistent with the prevailing Title VII law.
I begin first with the 45-day period of limitations and the reasons the EEO gave for declining to invoke the broad discretion it had to toll it. The 45-day period of limitations is prescribed in what is known as a legislative rule. Such rules are adopted pursuant to express authorization by Congress and they “create new law, rights, or duties, in what amounts to a *370legislative act.” White v. Shalala, 7 F.3d 296, 303 (2d Cir.1993); see also Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80, 91 (2d Cir.2000). We have held that, “[w]hen Congress delegates to an agency the power to promulgate rules, the [agency] adopts rules with legislative effect.... The [rule] is therefore entitled to more than mere deference or weight. It can be set aside only if the [agency] exceeded [its] statutory authority or if the regulation is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” United States v. Chestman, 947 F.2d 551, 557-58 (2d Cir.1991) (en banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The legislative rule at issue here — the 45-day period of limitation — is eminently reasonable. Like most periods of limitations, it reflects a number of significant considerations of policy beyond protection against stale claims. See generally Robert A. Leflar, The New Conflicts-Limitation Act, 35 Mercer L.Rev. 461, 469 (1984). One of those considerations is that “the earliest possible contact with a counselor aids resolution of disputes because positions on both sides have not yet hardened.” See EEOC Explanation of Final Rule, 57 Fed.Reg. at 12635. This avenue of relief may also have the effect of limiting potential liability for hostile conduct, because such conduct could be stopped if an aggrieved employee seeks timely EEO intervention and avails herself of the follow-up procedures prescribed in the regulations. Indeed, only recently the Supreme Court predicated an affirmative defense on the premise that, “[i]f the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of the employer’s preventive or remedial apparatus, she should not recover damages that could have been avoided if she had done so.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 806-07, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998); see also Candad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 295-96 (2d Cir.1999). If an aggrieved employee may have an obligation “to avail herself of the employer’s preventive or remedial apparatus,” id. at 807,118 S.Ct. 2275, surely a regulation that requires her to do so in a timely fashion is an entirely reasonable exercise of the legislative rulemaking power conferred on the EEOC.
Plaintiff here does not challenge the validity of the EEOC regulation. Nor is the application of that regulation here unreasonable. The Postal Service (Human Resources Office) declined to extend the 45-day period because, “the record indicates that [Fitzgerald] had prior knowledge or suspicion of discrimination before [Fitzgerald] sought EEO counseling in that [Fitzgerald’s] attorney representative’s correspondence states ‘postal service management has been made repeatedly aware of this situation.’ ” Appellant’s Supp. Appendix at 18. The Postal Service also found that “a reasonable person in [Fitzgerald’s] position would have suspected discrimination months, even years before [Fitzgerald] initiated EEO counseling on October 24, 1997.” Id. Significantly, following one of the acts of retaliatory harassment that contributed to a hostile work environment and that occurred as early as April 25, 1995, Fitzgerald “threatened to file an administrative complaint against Gerling for sexual harassment.” Supra at 351. Thus, the Postal Service reasonably held that Fitzgerald could not avail herself of the specific tolling provision in the EEOC regulation based on her unawareness of the discriminatory actions. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2).
We need go no further than determine that the Postal Service concluded reasonably that the plaintiffs filing was in large part time-barred. See Lopez v. Louisiana Nat’l Guard, 733 F.Supp. 1059, 1071-72 (E.D.La.1990). Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 *371(1976), which holds that Congress did not intend that an adverse EEOC determination would preclude federal employees from litigating anew the substantive merits of their Title VII claims, does not require a contrary result. This case involves the application of a procedural rule that the EEOC was authorized to adopt. It does not involve the substantive merits of the complaint. Nonetheless, even under a standard of de novo review, the decision of the Postal Service is clearly correct. Indeed, the approach to equitable tolling applied by the Postal Service is consistent with that followed by a number of the Circuits, and is more liberal than the prevailing Second Circuit law.
Chief Judge Posner’s opinion in Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations, 78 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir.1996) is particularly instructive. There at issue was the period of limitations for filing a Title VII sexual harassment charge with the EEOC. Judge Posner began by observing “that standard principles of limitations law, notably the discovery doctrine and the doctrines of equitable estoppel and equitable tolling, excuse the claimant from having to file before it is feasible for him to do so, and ... apply to cases brought under Title VII.” Id. at 1166 (citing Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982)).
These “meliorative doctrines,” he continued, apply equally to sexual harassment cases. Id. “Sexual harassment serious enough to constitute unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex is often a cumulative process rather than a one-time event.” Id. The significance of this process to the doctrine of equitable tolling is that, “[i]n its early stages it may not be diagnosable as sex discrimination, or may not cross the threshold that separates the nonaetionable from the actionable, or may not cause sufficient distress to be worth making a federal case out of, or may not have gone on long enough to charge the employer with knowledge and a negligent failure to take effective remedial measures.” Id. (citations omitted). Because we “do not want to encourage premature or precipitate litigation,” conduct that is not made the subject of an immediate complaint is not time-barred provided “the victim of sexual harassment sues as soon as harassment becomes sufficiently palpable that a reasonable person would realize she had a substantial claim under Title VII.” Id. If she does so “then she sues in time and can allege as unlawful conduct the entire course of conduct that in its cumulative effect has made her working conditions unbearable.” Id.
Judge Posner addressed specifically circumstances comparable to the present case, “when a long-continued series of harassing acts definitely are a series, a pattern, and not merely a set of discrete events, yet it was evident long before the plaintiff finally sued that she was the victim of actionable harassment.” Id. at 1167. In such a case, Judge Posner concluded,
while she can still sue provided that the last act of harassment occurred within the statute of limitations, she cannot reach back and base her suit also on conduct that occurred outside the statute of limitations; for she had no excuse for waiting that long. An additional consideration is that the bringing of the suit is almost certain to stop the harassment, so that unlike certain cases of nuisance the plaintiff will not be put to the expense of bringing successive suits. What is more, she can seek injunctive relief against a continuation of the unlawful conduct.
Id. (citations omitted). The principle to be extracted from the preceding discussion, *372which “organizes the complex and diffuse case law on continuing violations under Title VII[,] is that the plaintiff may not base her (in some cases his) suit on conduct that occurred outside the statute of limitations unless it would have been unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to sue before the statute ran on that conduct. ...” Id.
The First Circuit applied a similar analysis in Sabree v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local SS, 921 F.2d 396 (1st Cir.1990). A panel that included then-Chief Judge Breyer held that the critical inquiry in determining whether a continuing violation tolled the period of limitations is “what the plaintiff knew or should have known at the time of the discriminatory act.” Id. at 402. Specifically, Sabree held:
What matters is whether, when and to what extent the plaintiff was on inquiry notice. A claim arising out of an injury which is ‘continuing’ only because a putative plaintiff knowingly fails to seek relief is exactly the sort of claim that Congress intended to bar by the [300] day limitation period. It is this factor that is the undoing of Sabree, for he has admitted that he believed, at every turn, that he was being discriminated against. A knowing plaintiff has an obligation to file promptly or lose his claim. This can be distinguished from a plaintiff who is unable to appreciate that he is being discriminated against, until he has lived through a series of acts and is thereby able to perceive the overall discriminatory pattern. After all, [ejmployers as well as employees are entitled to procedural safeguards in the precincts patrolled by Title VII.
Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). By contrast, Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 113 F.3d 476 (3d Cir.1997), applying the Galloway holding, held that plaintiffs “failure to claim harassment in the 1991 EEOC charge does not destroy her claim, because the evidence shows that the harassment intensified after the charge was filed, and, moreover, she did not realize early on how pervasive or severe the harassment was.” Id. at 483; see also Huckabay v. Moore, 142 F.3d 233, 239 (5th Cir.1998) (tolling of statute of limitations was justified where “pattern of harassment was not the kind of violation that ... would put a worker on notice that his rights had been violated”).
The reasoning in Galloway and Sabree has also been applied in a number of other cases and appears to reflect the prevailing view in six of the Circuits. In addition to the cases cited above, see Bullingion v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1311 (10th Cir.1999); Hardin v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 167 F.3d 340, 344 (7th Cir.1999); Provencher v. CVS Pharmacy, 145 F.3d 5, 14-15 (1st Cir.1998); Conlin v. Blanchard, 890 F.2d 811, 815 (6th Cir.1989); Roberts v. Gadsden Mem’l Hasp., 850 F.2d 1549, 1550 (11th Cir.1988); Berry v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir.1983); contra Morgan v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 232 F.3d 1008, 1014-15 (9th Cir.2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 23, 2001) (No. 00-1614). Of particular note in our own Circuit is Judge Kaplan’s characteristically scholarly opinion in Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 891 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd on other grounds, 86 F.3d 8 (2d Cir.1996). There he held that the statute of limitations for filing a complaint in the district court would be tolled where (1) “the discriminatory acts within and without the limitation period are sufficiently similar and frequent to justify a conclusion that both are part of a single discriminatory practice chargeable to the employer,” id. at 165, and (2) “the circumstances are such that a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position would not have sued earlier.” *373Id. This test, Judge Kaplan continued, “gives due regard both to the defendant’s interest in being protected against stale claims and to the plaintiffs interest in adopting strategies designed to deal both with employment discrimination and of being certain that matters have reached a point affording a proper basis for resort to the courts.” Id. Nevertheless, Judge Kap-lan held that the plaintiffs claims were time-barred because the plaintiff “was well aware of the basis for the charges of racial discrimination included in the amended complaint,” id., and had not advanced any reason “as to why the civil rights claims were not asserted in federal court until more than seven years after the privileges were revoked, and the Court can conceive of none.” Id. at 166.
We have never had any occasion to consider, much less reject the prevailing authority discussed above, although the majority rejects it today without discussion. The Second Circuit case law is hardly the seamless web that the majority suggests compels the result here. On the contrary, on careful examination, it seems clear that the result reached by the majority is inconsistent with the Second Circuit approach to the doctrine of equitable tolling and to holdings in cases specifically applying the doctrine in a Title VII context.
While we have acknowledged that “[e]q-uitable tolling allows courts to extend the statute of limitations beyond the time of expiration as necessary to avoid inequitable circumstances,” Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir.1996), we have held repeatedly that “[ejquitable tolling requires a party to pass with reasonable diligence through the period it seeks to have tolled.” Id.; see also Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.2000) (same); Dodds v. Cigna Secs., Inc., 12 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir.1993) (equitable tolling will stay running of statutory period “only so long as the plaintiff has exercised reasonable care and diligence” (internal quotations omitted)), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1019, 114 S.Ct. 1401, 128 L.Ed.2d 74 (1994); Bowers v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 901 F.2d 258, 264 (2d Cir.1990) (equitable tolling not satisfied in the absence of “affirmative action on the part of [plaintiff] to preserve its right”); accord Singletary v. Continental Illinois Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 9 F.3d 1236, 1241 (7th Cir.1993) (equitable tolling “permits a plaintiff to sue after the statute of limitations has expired if through no fault or lack of diligence on his part he was unable to sue before”).
The present case does not present “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances warranting equitable tolling.” Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir.2000). The relevant factual allegations are set forth as follows in the majority opinion:
Fitzgerald stated that “[a]fter the incidents of [retaliatory harassment in] April and May[ ] 1995, and continuing through 1996 and 1997, Gerling became increasingly hostile and abusive toward plaintiff.” (Amended Complaint ¶ 90.) She stated that he unjustifiably berated her about her hours and productivity; he attempted to force her to work overtime when she was not scheduled to work, and he criticized her when she worked scheduled overtime; he treated her more harshly than male employees and than two female employees with whom he had had or was having a sexual relationship. Fitzgerald alleged that the harassment was “ongoing,” “repeated,” and “continuing” (EEO Complaint ¶¶ 10, 12, 20), occurring “day to day” (Amended Complaint ¶ 92), as Gerling “regularly and unfairly criticized” her work (id. ¶ 93) “repeatedly and on a continuing *374basis” (id. ¶ 91); she alleged that “[tjhese acts of hostility, criticism and harassment were severe and persistent and occurred on a continuing basis from April 1995 through September 1997” (id. ¶ 121). Thus, although the final abusive incident on September 25, 1997, was separated from Gerling’s final sexual advances by a gap of nearly 2% years, Fitzgerald’s assertions plainly alleged that there was no interruption in the allegedly unwarranted abuse to which she was subjected during that 2/é-year Phase II period.
Supra at 363. Even under the most generous equitable tolling standard, Fitzgerald’s claim fails because, as the Postal Service found and Fitzgerald does not counter with any persuasive argument, the retaliatory harassment had proceeded well past the time during which a reasonable person would have sought EEO counseling.
In reaching a contrary conclusion here, the majority does not refer to the doctrine of equitable tolling or the considerations of policy that provide the basis for tolling the period of limitations, even though the 45-day rule is “analogous to a statute of limitations and is ... considered subject to waivei', estoppel, and equitable tolling.” See Briones v. Runyon, 101 F.3d 287, 290 (2d Cir.1996). Instead, the majority holds that, because the hostile environment was permitted by the employer “to continue unremedied for so long that its inaction may reasonably be viewed as tantamount to a policy or practice of tolerating such discrimination,” the 45-day period of limitations must be tolled. Supra at 362. The only support for this holding is one sentence of dictum taken out of context from Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694 (2d Cir.1994), that was not accompanied by the citation of a single case or by any explanation. Supra at 359. The dictum has since been repeated in two subsequent cases. See Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759, 766 (2d Cir.1998); Van Zant v. ELM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, 713 (2d Cir.1996). Nevertheless, as is shown below, it is contrary to Second Circuit law.
In Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46 (2d Cir.1993), it was held that, “if a Title VII plaintiff files an EEOC charge that is timely as to any incident of discrimination in furtherance of an ongoing policy of discrimination, all claims of acts of discrimination under that policy will be timely even if they would be untimely standing alone.” Id. at 53. A “challenge to systematic discrimination is always timely if brought by a present employee, for the existence of the system deters the employee from seeking his full employment rights or threatens to adversely affect him in the future.” Reed v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 613 F.2d 757, 761 (9th Cir.1980) (citation omitted). Consistent with the policy underlying the rule, Lambert emphasized, however, that “[t]he continuing violation exception applies to cases involving specific discriminatory policies or mechanisms such as discriminatory seniority lists or discriminatory employment tests.... [MJultiple incidents of discrimination, even similar ones, that are not the result of a discriminatory policy or mechanism do not amount to a continuing violation. Since [the Lambert] plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of any such policy or mechanism here, the charge-person claims were properly dismissed as time-barred." Lambert, 10 F.3d at 53 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694 (2d Cir.1994), it was suggested that a continuing violation may also be shown “where specific and related instances of discrimination are permitted by the employer to continue unremedied for so long as to amount to a discriminatory policy or *375practice.” Id. at 704. While the majority relies on this dictum, it ignores the context of the case and the manner in which it was limited subsequently. Cornwell was a hybrid case; it involved a combination of “personnel policies [that] discriminated on the basis of gender and ... race- and gender-based harassment that [the defendant] and its supervisory personnel permitted to continue.” Id. Judge Kearse, writing in Cornwell, continued, “[ajgainst the background of [the defendant’s] gender-discriminatory policies and the hostile work environment created by those male [employees] who sought to rid MacCor-mick [a facility operated by the defendant] of female [employees], the [district] court properly concluded that the acts of discrimination and harassment by the individual defendants constituted a continuing wrong....” Id. (emphasis added).
Subsequently, in an opinion joined by Judge Kearse, Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Secretary of Dep’t of Labor, 85 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.1996), Cornwell was read as holding that a “continuing violation exists where there is a relationship between a series of discriminatory actions and an invalid, underlying policy.” Id. at 96. The prevailing law was summarized as follows: “[t]hus, in cases where the plaintiff proves i) an underlying discriminatory policy or practice, and ii) an action taken pursuant to that policy during the statutory period preceding the filing of the complaint, the continuing violation rule shelters claims for all other actions taken pursuant to the same policy from the limitations period.” Id. Both of these conditions were met in that case.
The common thread that runs through the Second Circuit holdings from Lambert to Connecticut Light & Power Co., is the requirement of an actual underlying policy as a predicate for applying the continuing violation rule. This thread was not severed in Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir.1998) and Van Zant v. ELM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708 (2d Cir.1996), which were decided after Connecticut Light & Power Co., and which repeat without qualification the Cornwell dictum that the continuing violation exception can apply where “specific and related instances of discrimination are permitted by the employer to continue unremedied for so long as to amount to a discriminatory policy.” Quinn, 159 F.3d at 766; Van Zant, 80 F.3d at 713. Both of these cases refused to toll the period of limitations, and I am not aware of any Second Circuit case that has applied this dictum to toll the statute of limitations in the absence of an underlying policy. We have recently rejected the notion that mere repetition can convert dictum to binding precedent, and we declined to follow an oft-repeated dictum that had never been the basis for a holding. Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763, 767-68 & n. 2 (2d Cir.2000). We should take the same approach with respect to the Cornwell dictum.
In any event, there is no basis for the suggestion that — in the words of the Cornwell dictum — the Postal Service permitted “specific and related instances of discrimination ... to continue unremedied for so long as to amount to a discriminatory policy or practice.” Cornwell, 23 F.3d at 704. While it is true that the Postmaster of the Lake Placid Post Office may have ignored plaintiffs complaints, there was in place a mechanism to deal with precisely this kind of supervisory neglect, namely, an EEO counselor and other follow-up procedures prescribed in the regulations. Plaintiff did not avail herself of that remedy for almost two and one-half years. She offers no justification for the failure to do so. Thus, even if the Postal Service may be vicariously liable for the hostile and discriminatory conduct of its employee, it is a considerable stretch to attribute plaintiffs ordeal to a policy or practice of the Postal Service to permit *376the discrimination she suffered to go un-remedied. Nor does plaintiff allege the existence of such a policy. Instead, the very same conduct that constitutes the elements of the cause of action against the Postal Service for harassment and retaliation (offensive conduct by one supervisory employee and the failure of another supervisory employee to stop it) is also said to constitute the alleged discriminatory practice or policy. I do not understand why this justifies invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling. Indeed, the application of ComweU here means that, for all practical purposes, the period of limitations would be tolled in every case involving sexual harassment or hostile work environment. Perhaps this should be the law. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that it is consistent with the considerations underlying the doctrine of equitable tolling. Nor am I-persuaded that we should override the reasonable administrative- scheme that the EEOC adopted here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.