United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library

NOTICE: THIS INDEX WAS PREPARED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FOR INTERNAL USE. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CASES, AND WAS LAST REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 1996.

Return to Table of Topics, 503 Index

OFCCP may not waive the 180-day filing requirement for administrative convenience, but only for good cause. OFCCP v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 82-OFC-2, ALJ Rec. Dec., September 30, 1986, slip op. at 11-12; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

Good cause is an abstract term and its meaning must be determined not only from the verbal context of the statute, but also from the context of the action and procedures involved and the type of case presented. Id. at 15; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

If the Director's finding of good cause appears reasonable and does not represent an abuse of discretion, it will be upheld. Id.; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

Good cause exists when there is evidence that the complainant made a good faith effort to file a cause of action at the state level and sought Federal relief but was told no such relief existed. Id. at 16; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

There is no time limit in the Act and the Director of OFCCP has broad discretion under the regulations to extend the time for filing a complaint "for good cause." OFCCP v. PPG Industries, Inc., 86-OFC-9, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Final Dec. and Remand Order on Remedy, January 9, 1989, slip op. at 11, n.2; dismissed on APA review, PPG v. United States, C.A. No. 89-0757 JGP (D.D.C.); reversed and remanded, 52 F 3d. 362 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Consent Decree, September 24, 1996.

ALJ declines to extend the 180-day filing period for good cause shown because the regulation at 41 CFR 60-741.26 grants such authority only to the Director of OFCCP. OFCCP v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 88-OFC-24, ALJ Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, March 23, 1990, slip op. at 6, reversed and remanded on other grounds, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Order of Remand, October 13, 1994; case closed January 17, 1996.

OFCCP's investigation and prosecution of a complaint received 187 days after the filing deadline is an implicit waiver by the OFCCP Director of the 180-day limit. OFCCP v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 90-OFC-8, ALJ Rec. Dec. and Order, July 9, 1991, slip op. at 17-18, n.4, stipulated dismissal, September 30, 1991.

Because complainant mailed his Section 503 complaint to OFCCP's district office five days before the filing deadline, which would normally ensure timely delivery, it must be assumed absence evidence to the contrary that OFCCP received the complaint within the 180-day period. Ibid.

Regulation 4l CFR 60-741.26 provides that a Section 503 complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged violation, unless the time is extended by the OFCCP Director for good cause shown. OFCCP v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 93-OFC-4, ALJ Rec. Order Granting Motion for Summary Decision, slip. op. at 2; remanded on other grounds, Assistant Secretary Order of Remand for Discovery, July 20, 1995.

Because contractor posted notices regarding employees' rights under the Rehabilitation Act, ALJ is unpersuaded by suggestion that Section 503 complainant was unaware of his Section 503 rights and, thus, declines to find good cause for complainant's failure to file a timely complaint. Id. at 4.

In granting summary judgment for contractor on the grounds that complaint was not timely filed, ALJ finds that the Director of OFCCP erred in finding good cause for the late filing because 1) the OFCCP Director erred in finding a continuing violation; 2) the complaint was filed more than two years after the alleged violation; and 3) the contractor had posted notices regarding employees' Rehabilitation Act rights. Id. at 4-5.

The ALJ's granting of the defendant's motion for summary decision, while the plaintiff's motions for discovery were unresolved was inappropriate. The plaintiff is entitled to present the best arguments it can in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the plaintiff must have access to information that could support its determination that a complainant's allegation, that he had been continuously refused reinstatement by the company for medical reasons since the date of his disqualification, constituted a continuing violation and was "good cause" to extend the filing date past 180 days. OFCCP v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 93-OFC-4, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Order and Remand, July 20, 1995 at 2-3, 5.