01995357
03-28-2001
Alfred Chircop, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Alfred Chircop v. United States Postal Service
01995357
March 28, 2001
.
Alfred Chircop,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01995357
Agency No. 1F-941-0144-97AH
DECISION
On June 15, 1999, complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission
from an agency decision pertaining to his complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The Commission
accepts the appeal in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.405.
Complainant contacted the EEO office regarding claims of discrimination
based on retaliation. Specifically, complainant claimed that on April
14, 1999, he became aware that an individual brought his EEO file to
the union office and asked another employee to review the file, which
contained complainant's personal medical information. Informal efforts
to resolve complainant's concerns were unsuccessful. Subsequently,
on May 21, 1999, complainant filed a formal complaint.
On June 11, 1999, the agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint
for failure to state a claim. The agency determined that during the
relevant time complainant was not employed by the agency. According
to the agency, complainant was an employee of the American Postal
Workers' Union (APWU), AFL-CIO which is not part of the agency, but
is an organization of postal workers that has a collective bargaining
agreement with the agency. Further, the agency concluded that the
complaint concerned Privacy Act violations which are not within the EEOC's
jurisdiction. Lastly, the agency found that complainant did not suffer
a harm when his medical information was revealed to a Postal employee.
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in
relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved
employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been
discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.103,
.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long defined
an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss with
respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which
there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
Here, complainant claims that his personal medical information was
improperly disclosed to another employee. Although the alleged actions
may have violated the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. � 552(g)(1), the incident
does not state a claim within the purview of the federal employment
discrimination laws. The Privacy Act provides an exclusive statutory
framework governing the disclosure of identifiable information contained
in federal systems of records and rests in the United States District
Courts exclusive jurisdiction. See Bucci v. Department of Education,
EEOC Request No. 05890289 (April 12, 1989); Osborne v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950654 (Feb. 15, 1996). Therefore,
we find that the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint, regarding
a violation of the Privacy Act, for failure to state a claim was proper.
Because of our disposition we do not consider whether the agency's
determination regarding complainant's employee status was correct.
Accordingly, the agency's decision to dismiss the complaint was proper
and is hereby AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the office of federal operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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
March 28, 2001
__________________
Date