05A20280
03-28-2002
Steve Weitzman, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Northeast Area), Agency.
Steve Weitzman v. United States Postal Service (Northeast Area)
05A20280
March 28, 2002
.
Steve Weitzman,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A20280
Appeal No. 01992434
Agency No. 1B-069-0028-97
Hearing No. 160-99-8042x
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Steve
Weitzman v. United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), EEOC Appeal
No. 01992434 (December 4, 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).
Complainant alleged he was discriminated against on the bases of religion
(Jewish), disability (cervical disc syndrome, scoliosis, bulging discs,
post traumatic stress disorder) and reprisal for prior protected EEO
activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and Section 501
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. � 791 et seq., when he on July 8, 1997, he was issued his fifth
notice of removal, charging him with failure to complete a scheduled
Fitness for Duty Examination. The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) held
a hearing and issued a decision finding that complainant failed to meet
his burden of establishing that the agency's actions were motivated by
discriminatory animus. The agency's final agency decision (FAD) adopted
the findings of the AJ. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the FAD.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant contends that the AJ's
decision contained numerous factual errors, and that the AJ erred in
interpretation of the law. Complaint also reiterates numerous arguments
made on appeal. We conclude, however, that the prior decision properly
considered complainant's arguments and properly affirmed the AJ's
ultimate finding that complainant did not adduce sufficient evidence to
establish that discriminatory or retaliatory animus toward his religion,
disability, or prior EEO activity was the basis for the issuance of the
notice of removal. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 120
S. Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
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. 01992434 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 28, 2002
__________________
Date