Frank B. Gallardo, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 28, 2000
01a01745 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 28, 2000)

01a01745

06-28-2000

Frank B. Gallardo, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Frank B. Gallardo v. United States Postal Service

01A01745

June 28, 2000

Frank B. Gallardo, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01A01745

) Agency No. HI-0026-99

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

____________________________________)

DECISION

On November 4, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this

Commission from an agency's decision pertaining to his complaint

of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.<1> The Commission accepts

the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be

codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405).

Complainant contacted the EEO office claiming that, on June 6, 1998,

he was harassed by a Postal Police Officer (PPO) and given a citation

for failure to conform with the directions of a PPO. Informal efforts

to resolve his concerns were unsuccessful. Subsequently, on December 14,

1998, complainant filed a formal complaint.

On November 4, 1999, the agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint

for failure to state a claim. The agency stated that complainant

attempted to enter postal property, after his regular work hours,

through a gate limited to tractor trailer traffic. Complainant was

allegedly trying to show two individuals postal vehicles for sale.

According to the PPO, he issued complainant a citation and failed in

attempting to get complainant to move out of the driveway. The agency

indicated that the complaint failed to state a claim, determining that

being on postal property outside of work hours is not a term or condition

of one's employment.

The regulation set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to

be codified and hereinafter cited as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1))

provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint

that fails to state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from

any aggrieved employee or applicant for employment who believes that he

or she has been discriminated against by that agency because of race,

color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition.

29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case

precedent has long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a

present harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of

employment for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air

Force, EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

A review of the record establishes that complainant received a citation

from a PPO for failure to conform to directions by the PPO. The ticket

contains standard form language indicating that complainant pay the fine

or appear before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Moreover, the record contains

a copy of the "Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Postal

Property" which describes applicability to "all persons entering in

or on such property." Therefore, we do not find that the citation

relates to a term, condition or privilege of complainant's employment.

Moreover, there is no indication that any personnel action was ever

initiated against complainant on account of the citation. Accordingly,

the Commission finds that the alleged incident does not render complainant

an "aggrieved" employee.

The agency's decision to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a

claim was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF

RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of

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

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604). The request or opposition must

also include proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, 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:

June 28, 2000

____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the 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.