05A01156
12-04-2000
Abraham Romero, Complainant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Abraham Romero v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
05A01156
December 4, 2000
.
Abraham Romero,
Complainant,
v.
Lawrence H. Summers,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request No. 05A01156
Appeal No. 01983524
Agency No. 96-1237
DISMISSAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 27, 2000, complainant filed a request with the Commission to
reconsider its previous decision in Abraham Romero v. U.S. Department
of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01983524 (December 22, 1999).<1>
Commission Regulations provide that requests to reconsider must be
filed with the Office of Federal Operations within thirty (30) calendar
days of the receipt of the previous decision, and that failure to do so
could result in dismissal of the request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
The Commission's decision of December 22, 1999, informed complainant
that a request for reconsideration must be filed with the Commission
within thirty calendar days of the date of receipt of the decision.
The decision also contained a certificate of mailing that informed
complainant that the Commission would presume that the decision was
received within five calendar days of mailing, which was December 22,
1999. The fifth calendar day following the date of the certificate of
mailing was December 27, 1999.
Complainant offers no justification for an extension of the applicable
time limit for filing its request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.604(c).<2> Accordingly, complainant's request for reconsideration
is hereby DISMISSED. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01983524
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
December 4, 2000
________________
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.
2 Complainant states that he entered into a settlement agreement before
issuance of the previous decision. However, he provides no evidence of
the settlement agreement. Moreover, we note that complainant's statement
may not have been intended as a request for reconsideration, but merely
correspondence identifying purported errors in the previous decision.
Nonetheless, because complainant's intentions in this matter are unclear,
we treat his statement as a request for reconsideration.