Notice of Address

EEOC Rules and Regulations clearly state:

(c) A complaint must contain a signed statement from the person 
claiming to be aggrieved or that person's attorney. This statement must 
be sufficiently precise to identify the aggrieved individual and the 
agency and to describe generally the action(s) or practice(s) that form 
the basis of the complaint. The complaint must also contain a telephone 
number and address where the complainant or the representative can be 
contacted.

MindInquiring Member

posted September 15, 2009 07:33 PM     What about this one BIG, I would like to have your opinion. Kelly Reed, Appellant, v. Tony E. Gallegos, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Agency. Initially, three unsuccessful attempts were made to deliver the FAD to appellant's home address. Under these cir-cumstances, it was proper for the agency to mail the FAD to appellant's place of employment, and for the previous decision to treat her place of employment as her constructive address. Consequently, appellant is deemed to have received the decision on November 2, 1993. Cf. Fadil v. NASA, EEOC Request No. 05920162 (April 9, 1992) (The Commission sent a copy of an appeal decision by certified mail to the complainant at her place of employment, which was her address of record. The complainant's representative signed for the decision on September 30, 1991, and the complainant stated that she received the decision on October 2, 1991. The Commission determined that the complainant's 'work address was the only address she provided the Commission as her address of record. Conse-quently, [the complainant] is deemed to have received the decision on September 30, 1991 '). Accordingly, we find that appellant's appeal of December 3, 1993 was untimely, and her request for reconsideration is denied. quote: Originally posted by BIGPAPPA: Lawrence S. Lomax v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007), quote: Originally posted by fairness6: BIGPAPPA, That is an excellent decision that you posted, and it should be helpful to a lot of people. I also note that it is a rather recent decision dated 2007. It would be interesting to know whether there have been other decisions since then by EEOC where the complainants have received retroactive promotions and or comp damages, because the agencies missed EEOC deadlines. I also noted that the agency requested reconsideration which was denied, which may mean that that case was a landmark decision by the EEOC. The way I see it the more cases one can find like that one, the more icing on the cake. "This is what happens when agencies fail to hand over ROI!! Sanctions Upheld for Untimely Investigation. The Commission found that an AJ did not abuse her discretion when she issued a decision in favor of complainant as sanctions for the agency's failure to timely process and investigate the complaint in accordance with the Commission’s regulations. After expiration of the 180-day period from the date that he filed her formal complaint, complainant sought a hearing before an AJ, and the AJ ordered the agency to produce its records. The agency did not initiate an investigation until after complainant's hearing request and submitted the report of investigation a full month after the AJ Order. The AJ ordered complainant’s retroactive promotion and payment of $1,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages. On appeal, the agency argued that the sanctions were punitive, that the AJ abused her authority by imposing sanctions against the agency, and that the sanctions imposed were too severe a penalty for the agency’s mere failure to seek an extension of time from complainant. Citing the Commission's inherent power to protect its administrative processes from abuse and to ensure that agencies and complainants follow its regulations, the Commission affirmed the AJ's sanctions and her finding that the agency discriminated against complainant. Lawrence S. Lomax v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080115 (December 26, 2007)." [This message was edited by fairness6 on August 28, 2009 at 02:40 PM.] Posts: 101 | Registered: May 21, 2009