Daniel E. Hill, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 11, 2002
05991158 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 11, 2002)

05991158

04-11-2002

Daniel E. Hill, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.


Daniel E. Hill v. United States Postal Service

05991158

April 11, 2002

.

Daniel E. Hill,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southeast Area)

Agency.

Request No. 05991158

Appeal No. 01992322

Agency No. 1-H-321-0142-98

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On September 13, 1999, complainant timely initiated a request to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the decision in

Daniel E. Hill v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01992322

(September 2, 1999). EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners

may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). The party requesting reconsideration must

submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more

of the following two criteria: the appellate decision involved a clearly

erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will

have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of

the agency. Id. For the reasons set forth herein, it is the decision

of the Commission to deny complainant's request but to reconsider the

prior decision on its own motion.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether the previous decision properly affirmed

the agency's dismissal of complainant's complaint on the grounds that

it was the basis of a pending civil action.

BACKGROUND

In the previous decision, the Commission dismissed the complaint, EEOC

Appeal No. 01992322, on the grounds that it was the basis of a pending

civil action. The record revealed that complainant filed a civil

action on July 15, 1998, case no. 98-291-CIV-ORL-19C, in the United

States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division,

alleging the same issue as in his EEO complaint.

On request for reconsideration, complainant stated that there is no

case pending before the United States District Court and, as such, the

referenced case should be investigated and determined in the EEOC forum.

In support of his request, complainant failed to submit evidence

indicating that his civil action was dismissed without prejudice.

However, the Clerk's office from the United States District Court of

Middle District of Florida, indicates that the civil action case number

98-291-CIV-ORL-19C, was dismissed without prejudice on August 31, 1998.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the

requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to

establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)

has been met. After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds

that complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405. The complainant did not establish that the appellate

decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or

law, or that the previous decision would have a substantial impact on the

agency's policies, practices, or operations. However, on its own motion,

the Commission has decided to reconsider the previous decision since

complainant's civil action was dismissed without prejudice on August

31, 1998. The Commission has held that access to the administrative

process must be maintained for individuals whose civil actions are

dismissed without prejudice. See Cooper v. Department of the Treasury,

EEOC Request No. 05920795 (April 8, 1993); Viera v. Department of the

Navy, EEOC Request No. 05910733. As such, we deem it appropriate to

reverse the earlier decision since the record reveals that complainant

filed a Notice of Dismissal, on August 31, 1998, regarding the case

no. 98-291-CIV-ORI-19-C and the matter was dismissed without prejudice.

Therefore, the agency is ordered to accept and process this complaint.

CONCLUSION

After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the

previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that

complainant's request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

The Commission, however, has decided to reconsider the previous

decision on its own motion. Upon reconsideration the decision in Appeal

No. 01992322 and the final agency decision are REVERSED. There is no

further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission

on a Request to Reconsider.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to process the complaint in accordance with 29

C.F.R. 1614.108. The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant that

it has received the remanded complaint within thirty (30) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall issue

to complainant a copy of the investigative file and shall also notify

complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)

calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter

is otherwise resolved prior to that time.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0501)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement

of the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the

right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g).

Alternatively, the complainant has the right to file a civil action on

the underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled

"Right to File A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408.

A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying

complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)

(1994 & Supp. IV 1999). If the complainant files a civil action, the

administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition for

enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0900)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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:

_______________________

Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat

April 11, 2002

________________________

DATE