Ricardo Bennett, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 1, 2002
05A20066 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 1, 2002)

05A20066

03-01-2002

Ricardo Bennett, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Eastern Area), Agency.


Ricardo Bennett v. United States Postal Service

05A20066

March 1, 2002

.

Ricardo Bennett,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Eastern Area),

Agency.

Request No. 05A20066

Appeal No. 01997146

Agency No. 4D-280-0055-98

Hearing No. 140-99-8033x

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Ricardo Bennett (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the

decision in Ricardo Bennett v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01997146 (September 14, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the

Commission may, in its discretion, 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).

In his complaint, complainant alleges he was discriminated against on

the bases of race (Black) and sex (male), when on December 19, 1997,

he was issued a letter of warning for unsatisfactory attendance.

In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's final

decision which concluded that complainant did not establish a prima

facie case of discrimination based on race or sex, since he did

not demonstrate that an employee outside of his protected group was

treated more favorably than he. The Commission also found that the

agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action,

namely, complainant's poor attendance record and the fact that complainant

received the letter of warning, as a step in progressive discipline.

In his request for reconsideration, complainant failed to raise any

argument or evidence not previously considered in rendering the appellate

decision. Therefore he failed to show that the appellate decision involved

a clearly erroneous interpretation of law or would have a substantial

impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency.

After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. 01997146 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no

further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission

on this 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

March 1, 2002

__________________

Date