be held to have constructively received it. See Kumferman v. Department of Navy, 785 F.2d 286, 288-89 (Fed.Cir.1986) (proof of mailing of notice by government insufficient to meet statutory requirement of receipt of notice). As long as he did not intentionally avoid receiving the decision, of which there is no evidence in the record, no receipt occurred with which Saddler can reasonably be charged. Common sense would seem to obligate an employee to inform the agency of his current address, especially if he is serious about his discrimination claims. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the board can dismiss an appeal as untimely when it has been filed in compliance with the literal requirements of the regulation. But see Lewis v. Conners Steel Co., 673 F.2d 1240, 1242 (11th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The regulation contains no requirement other
holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that  final responsibility for enforcement of title vii is vested with federal courts holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination holding that with respect to notice in title vii cases plaintiff should be required to assume some minimum responsibility himself for an orderly and expeditious resolution of his dispute holding that title vii claim is independent of cba and thus minor dispute