05990572
06-01-2000
James A. Burns, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James A. Burns v. United States Postal Service
05990572
June 1, 2000
James A. Burns, )
Complainant, ) Request No. 05990572
) Appeal No. 01983933
) Agency No. 4F-000-0012-98
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in James
A. Burns v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01983933 (March
16, 1999).<1> 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b)).
The previous decision affirmed the agency's dismissal of complainant's
complaint pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be
codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)).
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in
relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved
employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she
has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. ��
1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has
long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm
or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment
for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC
Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). The previous decision found that
complainant failed to show that he was injured when he was informed that a
"credible witness" would come forward and testify that the agency's EEO
office is being controlled and manipulated to protect the agency from
complaints filed by complainant and "his disciples."<2> Therefore,
the previous decision affirmed the agency's dismissal of the complaint.
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. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01983933 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.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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:
June 1, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The Commission notes as to complainant's claim of discrimination
based on reprisal, under present Commission policy, claimed retaliatory
actions which can be challenged are not restricted to those which affect
a term or condition of employment; a complainant is protected from any
discrimination which is reasonably likely to deter protected activity. See
EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation;" No. 915.003 (May 20,
1998), p. 8-15. Upon review of the record, we note there is no argument
or evidence provided by complainant herein that the alleged incident
would reasonably deter protected activity.