Complainant has previously prosecuted against his former employer, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol(” AOC”), four separate proceedings under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (“CAA”). Those proceedings resulted in the filing of four separate complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court eventually dismissed the Complaints, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
In this fifth Complaint against AOC, complainant contends that AOC committed new acts of discrimination and retaliation against him when its counsel allegedly made deliberate misrepresentations of fact and law to the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the prior cases, thus prompting those courts to deny him relief.
In its Motion 10 Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, Respondent AOC has raised numerous challenges to the maintenance of the instant action, It is only necessary to consider one of those challenges, which is plainly dispositive of the matters at issue.
Under Section 402(a) of the CAA, in order to commence a proceeding in the Office of Compliance, a covered employee must begin by requesting counseling by the Office, and “[a] request for counseling shall be made not later than 180 days after the date of the alleged violation.” Any complaint with respect to violations which allegedly occurred more than 180 days before the request for counseling is untimely, and a Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
In this case, the request for counseling was made on May 2, 2002. Accordingly, this Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction to consider alleged violations which occurred prior to November 2, 2001.
