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