James N. Gilson, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 22, 2011
0520110571 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 22, 2011)

0520110571

12-22-2011

James N. Gilson, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.




James N. Gilson,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southwest Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110571

Appeal No. 0120090898

Agency No. 4G-752-0014-08

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in James

N. Gilson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090898 (May

20, 2011). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its

discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision

where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.405(b).

Our previous decision found that the EEOC Administrative Judge properly

granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency, and that Complainant

failed to establish that the Agency discriminated against him on the

basis of age and disability when it terminated him. We noted that the

Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions;

namely, that Complainant could not carry the route he was trained on

and failed to deliver express mail. We also noted that Complainant

did not claim that he was denied a reasonable accommodation. Lastly,

we noted that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s actions

were motivated by discrimination as alleged.

In his request for consideration, Complainant contends, in pertinent part,

that a material witness testified that supervisors discussed his age on

several occasions in relation to his ability to do the job. Complainant

contends that this witness was not contacted by the Agency to corroborate

her statements. Complainant contends that new employees were never given

instructions on how to handle priority mail. Complainant contends that

supervisors indicated that he had handled mail correctly. Complainant

contends that the Agency never interviewed other employees at its

McKinney facility.

Notwithstanding Complainant’s contentions above, there is no dispute

that Complainant was having some difficulties performing his job and had

a lack of productivity. There is also no dispute that Complainant did not

request any form of accommodation. We remind Complainant that a request

for reconsideration is not a second form of appeal. See Lopez v. Dep't of

Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007); EEO Management

Directive for Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, §VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999).

After reviewing 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. 0120090898 remains the

Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative

appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)

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 (Z0610)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

December 22, 2011

Date

2

0520110571

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110571