05a01047
11-21-2000
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
05A01047
11-21-00
.
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A01047
Appeal No. 01984981
Agency Nos. 1F-937-1016-96; 1F-937-1061-95
Hearing Nos. 370-97-X2235; 370-97-X2236
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On March 16, 1999, Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. (complainant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to
reconsider the decision in Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. v. William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01984981
(January 21, 1999). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission
may, in its 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).<1> For the reasons set forth
below, the complainant's request is denied.
The issue presented in this request is whether the previous decision
properly dismissed the complaints at issue herein.
Complainant alleged discrimination based on race/color (white),
national origin (German/French/American), sex, and age (DOB 9-17-42),
and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was denied official time
by the agency to represent other employees in the processing of their
EEO complaints. Although the agency processed the instant complaints
on their merits and an AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination,
the previous decision dismissed the complaints and found that complainant
lacked standing to bring an EEO complaint regarding denial of official
time to him.
Complainant has filed a request to reconsider, arguing that his rights
under the Commission's regulations were violated. Specifically,
complainant refers to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(a)-(b). A close reading of
those provisions, however, gives the right to representation and to
official time to the individual, affected complainant and not to his
representative, as complainant asserts. Complainant misread both the
Commission's regulations and case law in support of his contention that
he maintains rights to claim discrimination with regard to representation
of others.
We find that the previous decision properly dismissed the complaints
on the ground that complainant lacked standing and thus failed to
state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). Complainant's claims
concerned his representation of other employees who filed individual
EEO complaints and worked at a different agency facility from his own.
He alleges discrimination when he was denied official time for travel
and representation of those employees. We find that complainant
lacks standing to bring the instant complaints and that he fails
to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). Such a claim lies
with the complainant, and not his or her representative. See Sessoms
v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973440 (June 11, 1998); Morman
v. Department of the Air Force, Appeal No. 01964629 (March 17, 1997).
CONCLUSION
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. 01984981 (January 21, 1999) 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.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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
__11-21-00________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.