01971323_r
01-22-1999
Archie K. Crawford, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Archie K. Crawford, )
Appellant, )
)
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01971323
) Agency No. 1K-221-1058-96
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency properly dismissed
appellant's complaint for the reasons set forth herein. In his complaint,
appellant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination when (1) he
was issued a Letter of Warning dated May 22, 1996, and (2) the Privacy
Act was violated when his accident of March 6, 1996, was cited in the
Letter of Warning. The record indicates that the subject Letter of
Warning was subsequently reduced to an official discussion on August 14,
1996, through a grievance settlement agreement.
The Commission has previously held that a Letter of Warning reduced to a
discussion no longer constitutes a disciplinary action. Yeats v. USPS,
EEOC Request No. 05940605 (October 27, 1994); Gafforino v. USPS, EEOC
Request No. 05910847 (December 30, 1991). Since there is no indication
of any continuing effect on appellant from having received the letter,
and as the discussion was not in itself a disciplinary action, we find
that appellant is no longer aggrieved. Accordingly, allegation (1) was
rendered moot. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631
(1979).
With regard to allegation (2), we find that this allegation was properly
dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Commission has held that
jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Privacy Act rests exclusively
with United States District Courts. See Story v. USPS, EEOC Appeal
No. 01953767 (October 18, 1995); Concon v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01965280
(May 14, 1997)(allegation that Privacy Act violated when a supervisor
allegedly allowed a coworker to read appellant's CA-1 form and coworker
discussed its contents with other employees failed to state a claim
because allegation of a Privacy Act violation is not within the purview
of the EEO process); Ogden v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01965916 (July 17,
1997)(allegation that an agency official's letter to DOL's OWCP divulged
private matters and contained an accusation of perjury regarding appellant
and was false and misleading and that the information was considered by
the DOL's OWCP was an impermissible collateral attack on the manner in
which the agency represented itself in the DOL's OWCP forum). See also
Bucci v. Department of Education, EEOC Request No. 05890289 (April 12,
1989)(alleged violation of the Privacy Act is outside the purview of
the EEO process): Osborn v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05950654 (February
15, 1996).
Accordingly, the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons
set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Jan 22, 1999
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations