Note: The agency sent you a check. If you did not agree to the amount, and you don’t complain to them or you don’t complain to the EEOC, and you accept the check, you have nothing to stand on your side. On the other hand, the agency has all kinds of proof, that you were satisfied with their small check.
The doctrine of laches is an equitable remedy under which an individual’s
failure to diligently pursue their actions can bar their claims.
See O’Dell v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request
No. 05901130 (December 27, 1990). The Commission has long held that
complainants must act with due diligence in pursuit of their claims or
the doctrine of laches may be applied. See Walker v. Department of
the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05960679 (December 12, 1997).
The complainant supplemented his appeal documents with an October 3, 1990
letter written by his attorney to the agency, requesting full relief and
a follow-up letter dated December 14, 1990, showing that the complainant
had not yet received a response from the agency. In the complainant’s
original appeal submissions is an undated letter from the agency to
the complainant showing that it had met with him on April 1, 1991.
The letter informed the complainant that a back pay check had been sent
to him in August 1989 and that it had advised him in an August 18, 1989
letter that the agency considered the check complete relief since he
was unable to work at that time. Additionally, the agency stated that
it considered his negotiation of that check as his agreement with the
agency as to full relief and that the August 18, 1989 letter gave him
appeal rights to EEOC, which he did not avail himself of. We note that
a copy of the August 18, 1989 letter is not in the file.
The record shows no other correspondence between the complainant and
the agency, making the February 22, 1999 appeal to this Commission the
next action taken by the complainant in pursuing his rights. In his
appeal, he asks that the documents he submitted be reviewed and that
the decision be enforced. In the agency’s response, it requests that
the complainant’s appeal be barred by the doctrine of laches as it would
suffer undue prejudice due to this almost ten year delay.
In the instant case, the Commission finds that the doctrine of laches is
applicable and the complainant’s appeal must be dismissed. Almost eight
years have passed since the last communication between the complainant and
the agency regarding this case. The complainant proffers no explanation
for the extensive lapse in time prior to filing this appeal. Such an
extensive passage of time has resulted in the destruction of documents
rendering any further processing of the complainant’s 1987 complaint
difficult, if not impossible.
Accordingly, we find that the complainant did not act with reasonable
diligence when he filed this appeal with the Commission nearly eight
years after his last contact with the agency and the doctrine of laches
requires the dismissal of his appeal.
CASE REFERENCE:
Robert Vines, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01992784
) Agency No. 87-277
Togo D. West, Jr., )
Secretary, )
Department of Veterans )
Affairs, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
