05970419
03-08-2000
Robert L. Perry, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Robert L. Perry v. United States Postal Service
05970419
March 8, 2000
Robert L. Perry, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05970419
) Appeal No. 01944268
) Agency No. 1-C-1284-93
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 5, 1996, Robert L. Perry (complainant) initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider the
decision in Perry v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01944268 (June 7, 1995).<1>
In 64 Fed. Reg. 37644, 37659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405), EEOC regulations provide that the
Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous decision
where the party demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved
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 previous decision concerned the agency's determination that it had not
breached a Settlement Agreement. One issue was remanded and the agency
was instructed to look as to what settlement agreement complainant
was relying upon with respect to two other claims. Thereafter the
agency issued a final agency decision (FAD) in February 1996 dismissing
the remanded matter. The Commission closed its compliance file on the
remanded matters in May 1996. Complainant filed an appeal from the FAD.
Perry v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01965736 (August
7, 1997). Thereafter complainant filed the instant request in August
1996, referencing the Commission's letter closing the compliance matter.
In March 1999, the Commission upheld the appeal decision which affirmed
the agency's dismissal of the remanded matters. Perry v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05971053 (March 4, 1999).
Complainant's correspondence dated July 22, 1996, was received in August
1996 and mentions matters involving both EEOC Appeal Nos. 01944268
and 01965736. This correspondence was docketed as the instant request
for reconsideration. By letter to the Commission dated March 17,
1997, complainant reiterated that his "request for reconsideration
was based on factual evidence." Assuming that complainant's August 5,
1996 correspondence constituted a request for reconsideration of Appeal
No. 01944268, we find that the request was untimely. More specifically,
the request for reconsideration was filed more than thirty (30) calendar
days after complainant received the decision in Appeal No. 01944268
and complainant failed to submit adequate justification for extending
the filing period beyond thirty days. See EEOC Regulation � 1614.407.
The Commission notes that complainant cooperated with the agency's
processing of the matter prior to its issuance of the FAD. As such,
any concerns should have been raised during the processing of Appeal
No. 01965736.
Accordingly, complainant's request for reconsideration is denied. The
decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01944268 remains the Commission's
final decision in this manner. There is no further right of
administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a request
for reconsideration. Because compliance matters have been closed on this
matter, we are not repeating the previous Order herein.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
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:
March 8, 2000
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.