05a50609
04-25-2005
Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tyrone E. Murray, Sr. v. United States Postal Service
05A50609
04-25-05
.
Tyrone E. Murray, Sr.,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A50609
Appeal No. 01A50238
Agency No. 66-000-0037-04
DECISION
Tyrone E. Murray, Sr. (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of
the decision in Tyrone E. Murray, Sr. v. John E. Potter, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A50238
(February 17, 2005). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the requesting 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).
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's
determination that complainant's complaint failed to state a claim and
that his complaint was an improper collateral attack on proceedings before
other forums. Specifically, he complained that the agency influenced
the actions of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of
Labor because of his disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity.
Complainant has filed a request reasserting that the agency interfered
with his activity before other federal agencies.<1>
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.
When the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the claims alleged,
as in this matter, the complaint fails to state a claim and is properly
dismissed as provided for in our regulations. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
In this matter, because complainant challenges the results or proceedings
before other federal agencies, it is a collateral attack on other legal
processes. The EEO administrative procedure may not be used for this
purpose, and the complaint is properly dismissed.
After reconsidering 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. 01A50238 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
___04-25-05_______________
Date
1Complainant is advised that the 1996 settlement agreement is not germane
to this matter.