Robert D. Hill, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 7, 2004
05A40480 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 7, 2004)

05A40480

07-07-2004

Robert D. Hill, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.


Robert D. Hill v. United States Postal Service

05A40480

July 7, 2004

.

Robert D. Hill,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Request No. 05A40480

Request No. 05A30651

Appeal No. 01A20730

Agency No. 1D-271-0030-01

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Robert D. Hill (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider

the decision in Robert D. Hill v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 05A30651 (August 4, 2003). 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).

The procedural history of the instant case is briefly summarized as

follows. The Commission issued a decision on an appeal of a decision of

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) finding no discrimination when

complainant was removed from his position for unsatisfactory performance

and improper conduct. See Hill v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 03960097 (March 27, 1997). We found that the MSPB properly

determined that there was no discrimination. The Commission then issued

a decision in response to what appeared to be complainant's appeal of our

prior decision. In that decision, we stated that because our decision

in EEOC Appeal No. 03960097 was final and there was no further right of

appeal, the case was closed without further comment. See Hill v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A20730 (February 4, 2003).

Complainant then filed a request for reconsideration of the action

administratively closing his appeal. In our decision on request for

reconsideration, we determined that complainant's appeal concerned the

agency's final action dated June 20, 2001, rather than a prior decision

of the Commission, and thus our administrative closure was incorrect.

See EEOC Request No. 05A30651. The Commission's decision thus granted

reconsideration to correct this procedural error, and considered whether

the agency's prior final action properly dismissed complainant's formal

EEO complaint. The Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal for

several reasons, primarily because we had previously addressed several of

complainant's allegations of discrimination based on age and found that

he had not been discriminated against. We also affirmed the agency's

dismissal of complainant's claim that he was denied the opportunity

to complete an Employee Opinion Survey due to age discrimination.

The Commission concluded that the agency's final decision dismissing

complainant's complaint was proper and was affirmed. However, as this

was the first time complainant's appeal of the agency's final decision

was addressed on the merits, the right to request reconsideration was

included in the decision.

Complainant requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision,

arguing that the decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of

material fact or law. The agency responded to complainant's request,

alleging that complainant proffered no argument or evidence to support

his request and deny the request.

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. 05A30651 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

July 7, 2004

__________________

Date