05a01080
03-01-2001
Ray A. Garza, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United states Postal Service, Agency.
Ray A. Garza v. United states Postal Service
05A01080
03-01-01
.
Ray A. Garza,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United states Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A01080
Appeal No. 01A02922
Agency No. 4G-780-0070-99
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On July 27, 2000, Ray A. Garza (complainant) timely initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the
decision in Ray A. Garza v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General,
United states Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02922 (June 23, 2000).
EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion,
reconsider any previous decision where the party demonstrates that:
(1) the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).<1> For the reasons set forth below, the complainant's
request is denied.
The issue presented is whether complainant's request meets the criteria
for reconsideration of the previous decision.
Complainant sought EEO counseling on March 27, 1998, with regard to his
termination in May 1992. The previous decision affirmed the agency's
decision dismissing his complaint for untimely contact with an EEO
counselor. Complainant has filed a request for reconsideration of the
previous decision, contending that his supervisor told him his termination
was a mistake at the time of the event, the 1992 letter of removal was a
criminal act, and that his complaint based on national origin was timely.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision,
the requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish
that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met.
The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is
narrow, and it is not a form of second appeal. Lopez v. Department
of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989);
Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990).
After a thorough review of the record and complainant's request, we find
that it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Complainant has
not presented probative evidence demonstrating legal error or that the
previous decision was otherwise improper.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the
complainant's request. The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A02922 (June 23, 2000) 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.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
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 (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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
____03-01-01______________
Date
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.