04A10046_r
07-12-2001
Joseph F. Gerolamo, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Joseph F. Gerolamo v. United States Postal Service
04A10046
July 12, 2001
.
Joseph F. Gerolamo,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 04A10046
Agency Nos. 4C-190-1146-94, 4C-190-1091-96
DECISION ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter, EEOC or
Commission) has docketed a petition for enforcement (PFE) from Joseph
F. Gerolamo (hereinafter, petitioner) requesting enforcement of the
Commission's Order in Gerolamo v. United States Postal Service EEOC
Appeal No. 01975491 (November 18, 1998). This petition is accepted by
the Commission in accordance with EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a).
The issue presented in this petition is whether the agency has fully
complied with the Order of the Commission set forth in EEOC Appeal
No. 01975491.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed a formal complaint (Agency Case No. 4C-190-1146-94)
on February 9, 1997, in which he alleged that he had been discriminated
against when: (1) in December 1993, he was verbally abused and intimidated
by his driver trainer and ultimately did not receive a passing score
on a portion of his driving test; and (2) on April 5, 1994, he was not
reinstated to his position as a Letter Carrier following his recovery
from a broken ankle. The agency dismissed petitioner's complaint on
June 23, 1997, and complainant appealed to the Commission.<1>
Petitioner filed a second formal complaint (Agency Case
No. 4C-190-1091-96) on February 10, 1997, in which he claimed that he was
discriminated against when he received a letter dated February 16, 1996,
giving him a final decision denying his reinstatement after he requested
reconsideration upon receiving a letter dated January 20, 1996, denying
his reinstatement. The record shows that the agency issued a decision
on Agency Case No. 4C-190-1091-96 dated January 22, 1998, finding that
petitioner had not been subjected to unlawful employment discrimination.
The Commission issued a decision in Gerolamo v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01975491 (November 18, 1998), in which it
addressed both Agency Case Nos. 4C-190-1146-94 and 4C-190-1091-96.<2>
In this decision, the Commission found that the agency's dismissal of
both complaints was improper and remanded the two complaints for further
processing in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108.
On October 7, 1999, petitioner, through his attorney, filed a Petition
for Enforcement claiming that the agency failed to process the remanded
claims as stated in the Commission's November 18, 1998 Order.
The record shows that by letter dated July 14, 1999, the agency
informed petitioner's attorney that it was processing Agency Case
No. 4C-190-1146-94 as stated in the Commission's November 18, 1998 Order.
In this letter, the agency stated that as part of its investigation of
4C-190-1146-94, it was affording petitioner the opportunity to submit an
affidavit detailing the issues in his complaint. Also in the July 14,
1999 letter, the agency stated that it previously provided petitioner a
copy of the investigative file for Agency Case No. 4C-190-1091-96 in 1997.
A review of the record shows that the agency completed the investigation
of Agency Case No. 4C-190-1146-94 in December 1999, and issued a decision
on March 24, 2000, finding that petitioner was not subject to unlawful
employment discrimination with regard to the April 5, 1994 denial of
reinstatement or the December 1993 treatment during driver training.
The record shows that the agency issued a finding of no discrimination
in Agency Case No. 4C-190-1091-96 in January 1998.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Upon review, we find that although the agency delayed in implementing the
Commission's Order in EEOC Appeal No. 01975491, it ultimately complied
with the previous decision. The Commission's previous decision ordered
the agency to process the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �
1614.108. The record shows that the agency completed the investigation
of both Agency Case Nos. 4C-190-1146-94 and 4C-190-1091-96 and issued
final decisions on the merits of both complaints.
Accordingly, petitioner's Petition for Enforcement is DENIED.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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 12, 2001
__________________
Date
1Petitioner appealed to the EEOC using
an erroneous Agency Case No. 4C-190-1146-96, which is the case number
referenced in the Commission's November 18, 1998 decision. According to
the agency, the correct number is Agency Case No. 4C-190-1146-94 and
therefore, the Commission uses this case number in the present decision.
2We note that the Commission issued a decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01975491
(November 18, 1998) without recognizing that the agency already had
issued a final decision on the merits of agency number 4C-190-1091-96
in January 1998.