Martin Deranian, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 10, 1999
05990125 (E.E.O.C. May. 10, 1999)

05990125

05-10-1999

Martin Deranian, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Martin Deranian v. United States Postal Service

05990125

May 10, 1999

Martin Deranian, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Request No. 05990125

) Appeal No. 01980897

William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 1-F-937-1046-96

Postmaster General, ) Hearing No. 370-97-X2515

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On Monday, October 26, 1998, Martin Deranian (appellant) timely initiated

a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to

reconsider the decision in Deranian v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Appeal No. 01980897 (September 21, 1998). EEOC Regulations provide

that the Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous

Commission 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 misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2);

and the previous decision is of such exceptional nature as to have

substantial precedential implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).

Appellant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination on the bases of

race (Caucasian), color (white), age (53 years), sex (male), religion

(Christian), and national origin (American-Armenian) when his starting

time was changed from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. The record indicates that

the agency noticed a need to have employees with knowledge of a certain

scheme start earlier. Only two available employees had the requisite

scheme knowledge - appellant and one other employee. As a result, both

had their starting times changed to 4:00 a.m.

The agency investigated that complaint and thereafter appellant requested

a hearing. The administrative judge (AJ) issued a recommended decision

without a hearing noting that appellant did not respond to the agency's

motion for findings and conclusions without a hearing. In addition, the

AJ noted that during the investigation, appellant did not respond to the

agency's request for an affidavit. In any event, the AJ found that people

appellant cited as comparatives were not similarly situated - either

they were not qualified or they were not available because of previous

assignment to other duties, another zone, or another department. Even

looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, the

AJ found that there was no discrimination.

The agency adopted the AJ's findings and appellant filed an appeal. The

previous decision affirmed the agency's final decision without substantive

comment.

In his request for reconsideration, appellant complains that he did not

have a hearing and that his witnesses were not interviewed. Appellant does

not explain why he did not or could not respond to the agency's motion

for findings of fact and conclusions without a hearing. In addition,

the Commission notes that appellant did not provide any arguments when

he filed his appeal of the agency's decision - in effect, he is making

those arguments for the first time in his request. As such, the Commission

finds they do not meet the criteria for reconsideration. The Commission

also finds the AJ's decision, as adopted by the agency, properly sets out

the pertinent law and facts. The Commission finds no reason to disturb

the findings of no discrimination.

After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds appellant's request

does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is the

decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request. The decision

of the Commission in Appeal No. 01980897 remains the Commission's final

decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from the

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:

May 10, 1999

_______________ ______________________________

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat