05960672
10-16-1998
Delores Dupree, Appellant, v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster General, United States Postal Service. Agency.
Delores Dupree v. United States Postal Service
05960672
October 16, 1998
Delores Dupree, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05960672
) Appeal No. 01951273
Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., ) Agency No. 2-F-1419-92
Postmaster General, ) Hearing No. 170-94-8310X
United States Postal Service. )
Agency. )
)
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On June 29, 1996, appellant timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Delores Dupree v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01951273 (May 29, 1996),
received by appellant on June 3, 1996. EEOC regulations provide that
the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision.
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration must submit
written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more of
the following three criteria: new and material evidence is available
that was not readily available when the previous decision was issued,
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved an erroneous
interpretation of law, regulation, or material fact, or a misapplication
of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the decision is of
such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential implications,
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).
After a review of the appellant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that
appellant's request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c),
and it is the decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request.<1>
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01951273 remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from a
decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of
administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right
to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court.
It is the position of the Commission that you have the right to file
a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court WITHIN
NINETY (90) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. If you file a civil action,
YOU MUST NAME AS THE DEFENDANT IN THE COMPLAINT THE PERSON WHO IS THE
OFFICIAL AGENCY HEAD OR DEPARTMENT HEAD, IDENTIFYING THAT PERSON BY HIS
OR HER FULL NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE. Failure to do so may result in
the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the
national organization, and not the local office, facility or department
in which you work.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ��791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
OCT 16, 1998
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat
1The administrative judge found that appellant failed to establish a prima
facie case of race discrimination with respect to one vacancy because the
selectee for that position was also black. The characteristics of a
comparative employee are not a necessary element of the prima facie case
under Title VII. Enforcement Guidance on O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin
Caterers Corp., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (September 18, 1996). Appellant,
however, has presented no other evidence which would give rise to an
inference of race discrimination in that particular selection. Even
assuming that appellant established a prima facie case regarding the
selection of the black selectee, the AJ properly determined that the
agency articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for
appellant's nonselections. Appellant failed to prove that any of these
articulated reasons were pretexts for discrimination.