05a00741
02-28-2001
Orlando L. Green-Bush, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Orlando L. Green-Bush v. United States Postal Service
05A00741
02-28-01
.
Orlando L. Green-Bush,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00741
Appeal No. 01985389
Agency No. 1G-731-1022-95
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On March 21, 2000, Orlando L. Green-Bush (complainant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to
reconsider the decision in Orlando L. Green-Bush v. William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01985389
(March 17, 2000). EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners
may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous decision where the
party demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation
of the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).<1> For the reasons set forth
below, the complainant's request is denied.
The issue presented is whether complainant's request meets the criteria
for reconsideration.
Complainant filed his formal complaint on March 13, 1995, alleging
discrimination based on sex and reprisal when he was terminated from
his position as a casual mailhandler on December 24, 1994. After an
investigation, complainant requested a final agency decision (FAD).
The agency issued its FAD March 1998, finding no discrimination.<2>
In December 1994, agency supervisors evaluated all casual employees
to determine who would be retained after the new year. Complainant's
supervisor reviewed his entire service with the agency and determined
that, because he was not regular in attendance and was tardy on several
occasions, he would not be retained.<3> Complainant did not demonstrate
pretext, and the investigation did not reveal, nor did complainant
identify, any employees with similar attendance/tardiness records who
were treated more favorably and retained by the agency. Complainant's
claim based on reprisal was rejected since he had not engaged in prior
EEO activity. The previous decision affirmed the FAD.
Complainant has filed a request to reconsider the previous decision.
In his request, complainant complains about the agency's delay in
processing his complaint (see fn. 2, supra), contends that two management
officials presented contradictory statements with regard to knowledge
of his termination, and asserts that he had no time/attendance problems
from December 15, 1994, when he was initially terminated, through his
final termination.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision,
the requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish
that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met.
A request for review is not a second opportunity for appeal, and the
Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow.
Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749
(September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850
(September 7, 1990).
The agency, through complainant's supervisor, explained that he did
not maintain a consistent and reliable record of time and attendance,
and the agency elected to terminate his casual employment. Even if
management officials made contradictory statements and complainant had
no time/attendance problems after December 15, 1994, complainant has
not demonstrated that the agency's explanation was not true or based on
prohibited considerations, i.e., sex or reprisal.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the
complainant's request. The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal
No. 01985389 (March 17, 2000) remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal from a decision of
the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON 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
____02-28-01______________
Date
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The delay in processing the complaint was due to the agency's failure
to investigate his claim based on reprisal. Thus, his complaint was
subject to a supplemental investigation.
3Complainant's supervisor initially terminated him in mid-December but
another supervisor allowed him to continue working.