We find, however, that the analysis in the previous decision ignores the “pattern” aspect of appellant’s allegations. See
Ferguson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05970792 (March 30, 1999)
Meaney v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940169 (November 12, 1993).
The Commission has held that framing and addressing issues in a complaint as individual and distinct episodes lessens the impact of appellant’s several allegations and fragments them into separate parts, ignoring any underlying claim of ongoing discrimination.
See Manalo v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Requests No. 05970255 and 05970255
(June 1, 1998).
The time requirement for contacting an EEO counselor may be waived when the complainant alleges a continuing violation, that is, a series of related discriminatory acts, at least one of which falls within the applicable time period.
See, McGivern v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05901150 (December 28, 1990).
A continuing violation may occur where the alleged discriminatory actions are interrelated by a common nexus or theme. Where a nexus exists, appellant will have established a continuing violation and the agency would be obligated to “overlook the untimeliness of the complaint with respect to some of the acts” challenged by appellant.
Scott v. Claytor, 469 F. Supp. 22, 26 (D.D.C. 1978).
The remaining allegations and Issue (4) address a claim that the agency discriminated against appellant by denying her opportunities with regard to training, transfer and promotion.
Further, even though some of these claims fall outside of the 45-day period prior to appellant’s contact with an EEO counselor, their connection to the timely claim in Issue (4) renders them part of a continuing violation.
On remand, therefore, we will direct the agency to investigate Issues (1)-(5) as a continuing,
ongoing claim of discrimination, except as stated below.
