05a50767
09-13-2005
Cedrick Warren, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cedrick Warren v. United States Postal Service
05A50767
09-13-05
.
Cedrick Warren,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A50767
Appeal No. 01A51076
Agency No. 1H-301-0008-03
Hearing No. 110-2004-00255x
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On April 16, 2005, Cedrick Warren (complainant) timely requested
reconsideration of the decision in Cedrick Warren v. John E. Potter,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51076
(April 8, 2005). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate 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).
The previous decision affirmed the final agency action adopting the
decision of the Administrative Judge (AJ) that the agency did not
discriminate against complainant when he was removed for unacceptable
conduct, i.e., falsification of his timecard and leaving work without
authorization.
In his request, complainant re-stated the underlying facts and contended
that the deciding official (DO) was not truthful. We note that the AJ
relied on written evidence and not the testimony of the DO, whom the AJ
determined had a bad memory for events that occurred three years before.
We find that the previous decision was correct.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior 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. The Commission's
scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not
merely a form of a second appeal. 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 Commission finds that
the complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that, the request does not identify a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that
the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices or operation of the agency.
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. 01A51076 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on the decision of the Commission on this request.
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
___09-13-05_______________
Date