Brent L. Mason, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 31, 2011
0520110265 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2011)

0520110265

03-31-2011

Brent L. Mason, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.




Brent L. Mason,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Northeast Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110265

Appeal No. 0120102399

Agency No. 4B-105-0004-10

DENIAL

Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in Brent L. Mason

v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102399 (Sept. 13, 2010).

EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion,

grant a request to 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 the Commission’s previous decision, the Commission affirmed the

Agency’s April 8, 2010 final decision dismissing Complainant’s

complaint. In his complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency

subjected to him discrimination on the basis of race (African American)

when:

1. On May 21, 2009, Complainant was issued an Indefinite Suspension/Crime

Situation; and

2. On July 6, 2009, Complainant was issued a Notice of Removal for

Unacceptable Conduct, effective August 5, 2009.

The Commission found that the alleged discriminatory events occurred

on May 21, 2009, and August 5, 2009; but Complainant did not initiate

contact with an EEO Counselor until October 30, 2009, which was beyond

the 45-day limitation period. Complainant presented no persuasive

evidence or arguments warranting an extension of the time limit for

initiating EEO Counselor contact. As a result, the Commission affirmed

the Agency’s dismissal. In the instant request, Complainant submits

no contentions or arguments in support and requests that the Commission

reconsider its prior decision.

Initially, the Commission notes that a party must file a request to

reconsider a previous decision within thirty calendar days after the party

receives the previous decision. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b). A document

is timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the

applicable filing period or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it

is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable

filing period. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(b).

The Commission’s previous decision included a Certificate of Mailing

indicating that, for purposes of timeliness, the Commission will presume

that the decision was received within five calendar days of the date

on which it was mailed, September 13, 2010. Therefore, Complainant is

presumed to have received the previous decision no later than September

18, 2010. Thirty days from that date is October 18, 2010. As evidenced

by the postmark date, Complainant mailed the instant request on January 6,

2011, which was beyond the 30-day time limit set by regulation. In his

request, Complainant contended that he did not receive the previous

decision. The record indicates that Complainant filed the instant request

from a different address than the one he provided in his previous appeal.

There is no indication that Complainant informed the Commission of any

change of address. Nonetheless, under the specific circumstances in the

instant case, the Commission shall exercise its discretion and will deem

Complainant’s request as being filed in a timely manner.

However, the Commission reminds Complainant that a “request for

reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission.” Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part

1614, at 9-17 (Nov. 9, 1999); See Lopez v. Dep’t of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05890749 (Sept. 28, 1989); Regensberg v. U.S. Postal

Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900850 (Sept. 7, 1990). Complainant has

not provided any evidence that the Commission’s previous decision was

clearly erroneous, nor has he shown that the previous decision would have

a substantial impact on the Agency’s policies. After reconsidering 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. 0120102399 remains the Commission's decision. There is no

further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission

on this request.

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)

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 (Z0610)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

March 31, 2011

Date

2

0520110265

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110265