05A20479
06-11-2002
Richard E. Hunt, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.
Richard E. Hunt v. United States Postal Service
05A20479
June 11, 2002
.
Richard E. Hunt,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A20479
Appeal No. 01991071
Agency No. 1C-441-0158-97
Hearing No. 220-98-5171X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Richard
E. Hunt v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01991071
(February 6, 2002). 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 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In his complaint, complainant alleged that he was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Caucasian), color (white), and sex, in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., when on April 18, 1997, he was denied a request to
transfer to the custodial craft. An EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) held
a hearing and issued a decision finding that complainant failed to meet
his burden of establishing that the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus. The agency's final agency decision (FAD) adopted
the findings of the AJ. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the FAD.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant reiterates his contention
that the agency's claim that his disciplinary record was the reason for
the denial of his transfer request was pretextual. Complainant also
alleges that the Commission erred in its analysis of the facts of the
case. We conclude, however, that the prior decision properly considered
the facts, as well as complainant's arguments, and properly affirmed
the AJ's ultimate finding that complainant did not adduce sufficient
evidence to establish that discriminatory animus toward his race, color,
or sex was the basis for the denial of his transfer requests. Reeves
v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120 S. Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
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. 01991071 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.
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
June 11, 2002
__________________
Date