05a21293
03-10-2003
Stephen E. Kronson, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Stephen E. Kronson v. United States Postal Service
05A21293
03-10-03
.
Stephen E. Kronson,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A21293
Appeal No. 01A02140
Agency No. 4K-200-1122-96
Hearing No. 120-97-4496X
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On September 5, 2002, Stephen E. Kronson (complainant) timely initiated
a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider
the decision in Stephen E. Kronson v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02140 (August 12, 2002).
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).
The Commission's previous decision agreed with the decision of the
Administrative Judge (AJ) that the agency did not discriminate against
complainant on the bases of race (white), sex, or disability (stress)
when he was denied leave, suspended, and removed from his position for
improper conduct. According to the record, complainant reacted strongly
to cancellation of previously-approved leave, becoming belligerent and
offensive, using racial slurs and threatening behavior, and bumping
into his supervisor twice. He was placed on emergency suspension,
and, following an investigation by the Postal Inspection Service, he
was removed.
In his request, complainant contended that others who had similar
"outbreaks" got a second chance, he requested a transfer, and he referred
to his panic/anxiety attacks. In order to merit the reconsideration
of a prior 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 is not merely a form of a 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). The Commission finds that the complainant's request does not
meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that, the
request does not identify a clearly erroneous interpretation of material
fact or law, nor does it show that the underlying decision will have a
substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operation of the agency.
After a review of the 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. 01A02140 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the 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
___03-10-03_______________
Date