05A10590
07-25-2001
Earnest James, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny Area), Agency.
Earnest James v. United States Postal Service
05A10590
July 25, 2001
.
Earnest James,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Allegheny Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A10590
Appeal No. 01A04456
Agency No. 4C-440�191-98
Hearing No. 220-99-5218X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Earnest
James v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04456
(March 23, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the
requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2)
the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In the underlying complaint, complainant contends that he was
discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., based
on his race (Black), sex (male), and in reprisal for the filing of
prior EEO complaints under Title VII, when he was not selected for the
position of Senior Training Specialist, EAS-19. Following a hearing,
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) found no discrimination. The agency
adopted the AJ's findings and conclusions in the final agency decision,
which was affirmed by our prior decision.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant contends that our
prior decision failed to give appropriate weight to the fact that the
selecting official had previously had a finding of sex discrimination
made against her. He further contends that he was demoted in 1993,
and the demotion was rescinded four months later, thus rendering it too
far removed in time to credibly have been a legitimate factor supporting
his non-selection. In addition, complainant contends that applying Reeves
v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097, 2108 (2000), he met
his burden of proof based on indirect evidence of discriminatory motive.
Specifically, complainant contends that the prior decision failed to
find that the selecting official testified falsely regarding the stated
reasons for his non-selection, and to draw an inference of discriminatory
motive based on the allegedly false testimony.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. In reaching this
conclusion, we note that while complainant has identified evidence which
he contends supports a finding of discriminatory intent, we do not apply
a de novo standard of review to an AJ's post-hearing findings of fact,
including the finding of no discriminatory intent. Rather, applying
the substantial evidence standard of review, our prior decision properly
concluded based on a review of the whole record that a reasonable fact
finder could have found, as the AJ did, that the selecting official did
not act with discriminatory intent. Therefore, there was no ground for
overturning the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A04456 remains
the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request
for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
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 within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive
this decision. 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 (Z1199)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 25, 2001
__________________
Date