0520110646
02-16-2012
Alvin C. Hicks, Jr., Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Alvin C. Hicks, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110646
Appeal No. 0120090092
Hearing No. 570-2007-00566X
Agency No. 4K-220-0091-07
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Alvin
C. Hicks, Jr. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090092 (July
25, 2011). 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 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 previous decision affirmed the Agency’s implementation of the
Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision without a hearing, in which the
AJ found that Complainant had not been discriminated against as alleged.
Complainant had claimed that the Agency discriminated against him on the
bases of race, sex, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when he was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment,
a supervisor made a remark, he was placed on Leave Without Pay (LWOP)
and denied union representation, and he was denied mail delivery as a
transient customer. The AJ issued a decision in which he found that
Complainant had not established a prima facie case of sexual harassment,
that the supervisor’s remark was an isolated incident and likely
directed at another employee, that the Agency had given legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant’s placement on LWOP, and that
the issue of mail delivery to Complainant as a customer was outside of
the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Agency implemented the AJ’s
decision, and the initial appeal decision affirmed it after a detailed
analysis of Complainant’s claims, the record, the decision of the AJ
and whether Complainant had demonstrated that he had been subjected to
disparate treatment or harassment.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argued at length that
the previous decision was incorrectly decided, that he had been treated
unfairly by the Agency, and that the Agency had engaged in various acts
of wrong doing that he urged the Commission to address. The Agency
did not submit any statement in opposition to Complainant’s request
for reconsideration.
We find that Complainant has not shown that the previous decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that it
would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations
of the Agency. Although it is clear that Complainant disagrees with the
Commission’s findings in his complaint, after a review of the record,
we do not discern any clearly erroneous interpretations of material fact
or law such that the previous decision should be overturned.
After reviewing 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. 0120090092 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
February 16, 2012
Date
2
0520110646
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110646