Charles A. Bibeau, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 29, 2000
05980007 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2000)

05980007

06-29-2000

Charles A. Bibeau, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Charles A. Bibeau v. United States Postal Service

05980007

June 29, 2000

Charles A. Bibeau, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Request No. 05980007

) Appeal No. 01971028

) Agency No. 1-H-311-1049-96

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On September 29, 1997, Charles A. Bibeau (complainant) initiated

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

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

EEOC Appeal No. 01971028 (August 28, 1997). In 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644,

37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �

1614.106(d)), the regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their

discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the party

demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved 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). Complainant's request is denied.<1>

The issue herein is whether the agency properly dismissed complainant's

complaint on the grounds that complainant raised the same claim in a

prior EEO complaint.

Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint (Complaint 2), at issue

herein, claiming that he was discriminated against on the bases of race

(Hispanic), color, age (50), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when, on

or about August 23, 1996, the agency refused his request to be placed

into a custodial position for which he had applied and another less

qualified individual was placed in the custodial position. According to

complainant's formal EEO complaint, he initiated the complaint when he

learned from a coworker that the claimed less qualified applicant was

actually working in

the custodial position. The agency dismissed the allegation on the

grounds that complainant raised the same claim in a prior EEO complaint,

EEOC Case No. 1-H-311-1039-96 (Complaint 1). In Complaint 1, complainant

also raised race, color, age and reprisal discrimination regarding his

nonselection to a vacant custodial position. The record indicates that

the custodial position at issue in Complaint 1 is the same one referred

to in Complaint 2, at issue herein.

The agency dismissed Complaint 2 on the grounds that complainant

had raised the same claim in Complaint 1. The agency noted that the

only difference in the complaints was that complainant had asked for

compensatory damages in Complaint 2. The agency advised complainant that

he could amend his prior complaint to add the issue of compensatory

damages. The previous decision affirmed the agency's dismissal on

the grounds stated without substantive comment. In his request for

reconsideration, complainant appears to argue that Complaint 2 centered

around retaliation and was therefore different from Complaint 1, which

focused on age and race discrimination.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407(a)(1) provides that an agency may

dismiss a complaint which is pending before or has been decided by the

agency. After careful review of the record, the Commission finds that

the agency and the prior decision are correct. While complainant asserts

in his request for reconsideration that the cases are different, we can

find no evidence to support complainant's claim that Complaint 2 "is

a full and independent action of discrimination." Accordingly, after a

review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous decision

and the entire record, the Commission finds that complainant's request

does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the

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

of the Commission in Appeal No. 01971028 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.

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)

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:

__06-29-00____________ ______________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing 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 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.