05980426
06-23-1999
Edward J. Monahan, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Edward J. Monahan v. United States Postal Service
05980426
June 23, 1999
Edward J. Monahan, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05980426
) Appeal No. 01973771
William J. Henderson, ) Agency No. 4E800136196
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 1, 1998, appellant timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the decision in
Edward J. Monahan v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster General, United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973771 (January 28, 1998),
which he received on February 4, 1998. EEOC Regulations provide that
the Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous
Commission decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting
reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence which tends to
establish one or more of the following three criteria: new and material
evidence is available that was not readily available when the previous
decision was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision
involved an erroneous interpretation of law, regulation or material fact,
or misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2);
and the previous decision is of such exceptional nature as to have
substantial precedential implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).
Appellant filed a complaint in which he alleged that the agency retaliated
against him for a previously-filed complaint (No. 4E-800-1108-94,
settled on January 20, 1994) when, on August 23, 1996, an acting 204B
supervisor screened his personal telephone call to another employee.
Appellant informed the counselor, that when he tried to contact the
other employee, a clerk answered and put the call through to an acting
supervisor. Appellant stated that the acting supervisor put him on hold
for 10 minutes, but that he eventually spoke to the other employee.
The acting supervisor indicated that the clerk paged her because he
could not reach the employee directly. She also stated that she was not
employed at the facility when appellant filed his prior EEO complaint, and
consequently was not aware of what that complaint entailed. The agency
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 29
C.F.R. �1614.107(a), and the previous decision summarily affirmed.
The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is
narrow. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749
(September 28, 1989). In order for a case to be reconsidered under 29
C.F.R. � 1614.407(c), the request must contain specific information
which meets the requirements of this regulation. A request for
reconsideration is not merely a form of second appeal. Regensberg
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September
7, 1990). Instead, the request for reconsideration is an opportunity
for an appellant to submit newly discovered evidence, not previously
available; to establish substantive legal error in a previous decision;
or to explain how the previous decision is of such an exceptional
nature as to have effects beyond the case at hand. Lyke v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900769 (September 27, 1990).
In his request for reconsideration, appellant raises numerous incidents
that occurred throughout 1993, which led to the January 1994 settlement
of Complaint No. 4E-800-1108-94. He does not, however, present any
argument or evidence addressing any of the reconsideration criteria,
or otherwise challenging the previous decision's conclusion that his
complaint failed to state a claim.
After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the
agency's response, the previous decision, and the entire record, the
Commission finds that appellant's request does not meet the criteria
of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is the decision of the Commission
to deny appellant's request. The decision of the Commission in Appeal
No. 01973771 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further
right of administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a
request for reconsideration.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
June 23, 1999 ______________________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat