FAD – Dismissal Language Because Prior EEO Complaints

The claim is dismissed as untimely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), because the Complainant failed to initiate EEO Counselor contact within the 45-day regulatory time limit and there exists no circumstance which would warrant the extension of the time limit. There is sufficient evidence that the Complainant knew, or reasonably should have known, of the 45-day time limit concerning EEO counseling. Including the subject complaint, he has been counseled on and filed, either informally or formally, at least 2 EEO complaints. Given that the previous complaints have included issues related to terms and conditions of her employment, the Complainant should have reasonably suspected the act alleged in this claim to be discriminatory long before DATE. Accordingly, no basis for extending the statutory time period exists here. The regulatory basis for this decision is 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2).

Footnote – Reprisal

Based upon the record, the Complainant’s prior EEO activity consists of her request for reasonable accommodation in November 2013.