01980106
10-27-1998
Kenneth P. Moore, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Kenneth P. Moore v. United States Postal Service
01980106
October 27, 1998
Kenneth P. Moore, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01980106
) Agency No. 1-K-209-0012-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
The Commission finds<1> that the agency's September 9, 1997 decision
dismissing appellant's complaint on the bases of failure to state a
claim and because it alleged a proposal to take a personnel action,
is proper pursuant to the provisions of 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)and (e).
The record shows that appellant alleged that he had been discriminated
against on the bases of race and color (black), sex (male), age (over
40) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) on March 20, 1997, he
received a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action-Reduction in Grade and/or
Pay;<2> and, (2) on an unspecified date, management violated the Privacy
Act when other employees were informed of the proposed adverse action
towards appellant. The agency dismissed allegation (1) on the basis
that it alleged a proposal to take a personnel action. Allegation (2)
was dismissed on the grounds of failure to state a claim.
The Commission has consistently held that the proposal to take an
adverse action itself does not cause sufficient injury to give an
employee standing to file a complaint. Arndt v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05930583 (June 24, 1993). Accordingly, allegation (1)
was properly dismissed under Section 1614.107(e). Concerning allegation
(2), the Commission has found that when an employee believes that an
agency has violated his rights under the Privacy Act, the proper remedy is
provided under that legislation. Henry v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01943229
(October 27, 1994). Accordingly, allegation (2) was properly dismissed.
The agency's decision dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,
the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and any supporting documentation must be submitted with your
request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests
for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. �l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
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 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. 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 (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:
October 27, 1998
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 Although appellant has requested a stay of the appeal until such time he
"can conduct a vigorous appeal on his behalf", the evidence provided to
support such request has been found insufficient to grant his request.
Accordingly, a decision is hereby issued.
2 By document dated May 12, 1997, the Manager of Maintenance Operations
rescinded the Notice of Proposed Adverse Action.