05a01252
11-21-2000
Anthony Des Vignes, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Anthony Des Vignes v. United States Postal Service
05A01252
November 21, 2000
.
Anthony Des Vignes,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A01252
Appeal No. 01A02743
Agency No. 4B010001799
Hearing No. 160-99-8689X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Anthony Des Vignes (complainant) initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Anthony Des Vignes v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A02743 (July 28, 2000).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that
the Commission may, in its discretion, 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).
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. In his request
for reconsideration, complainant contends, among other things, that the
previous decision involved clearly erroneous interpretations of fact
and law in that the Commission failed to allow him to add new bases of
discrimination to his complaint on appeal. Complainant reiterates the
argument, first raised on appeal, that because he represented himself
prior to the appeal, his attempt to add the new bases of race and national
origin on appeal should be honored. He also reiterates his argument
that the agency should have investigated the bases of race and national
origin when the investigation revealed that one of the named comparators
was of a different race and national origin than complainant.
While there are circumstances in which we allow the addition of a new
basis of discrimination to a complaint on appeal, the circumstances
of this case do not support such an outcome. See Valdez v. United
States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00196 (May 11, 2000)
(Absent a compelling reason, a complainant may not add a new basis
on appeal). Complainant clearly indicated during EEO counseling, in
his formal complaint, and in his affidavit that he was subjected to sex
discrimination. At no point during the investigation did he indicate
that he wanted to add the bases of race and/or national origin to his
complaint. Complainant also made no attempt to add a new basis when
he requested a hearing, or when he was informed that the Administrative
Judge intended to issue a decision without a hearing.
We find that complainant had ample opportunity to add the bases of
race and national origin to his complaint prior to appeal. He also had
sufficient opportunity to raise concerns about the agency's investigation.
His argument that his �pro se� status excuses his failure to do so is
without merit. Moreover, we find that the agency adequately investigated
the claim complainant raised. After a careful review of the record,
including arguments and evidence not specifically mentioned in this
decision, we find that complainant failed to demonstrate that the previous
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law or that it will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,
or operations of the agency. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A02743 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
November 21, 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 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.