Charles L. Watkins, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 14, 1999
01972187 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 14, 1999)

01972187

01-14-1999

Charles L. Watkins, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Charles L. Watkins v. United States Postal Service

01972187

January 14, 1999

Charles L. Watkins, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01972187

v. ) Agency No. 1-I-641-0010-97

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

On January 4, 1997, appellant filed an appeal of the agency's November 25,

1996 final agency decision. The agency failed to provide a certified

mail return receipt or any other material capable of establishing the

date when appellant received the final agency decision. Accordingly,

the Commission presumes that appellant's appeal was filed within 30 days

of appellant's receipt of the agency's final decision. Accordingly,

the appeal is accepted as timely (see, 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)), in

accordance with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

In the final agency decision, the agency noted that appellant requested

EEO counseling on the issue of whether he was tricked, deceived and

coerced into signing a settlement agreement entered into in Agency

No. 1-I-641-1067-96. Appellant's request for counseling was assigned

Agency No. 1-I-641-0010-97. In its decision, the agency stated that

appellant's request for counseling would be processed as a request to

reopen Agency No. 1-I-641-1067-96, rather than as a new complaint. The

agency also stated that it was voiding the settlement agreement entered

into in Agency No. 1-I-641-1067-96 and, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.504,

was reinstating the July 22, 1996 complaint, which resulted in the

settlement agreement. The agency reasoned that in entering into the

settlement agreement, the agency had not complied with the requirements

of the Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).<1>

There is no dispute that the agency voided the settlement agreement

in Agency No. 1-I-641-1067-96. In addition, the record reveals that

the agency reinstated the complaint in Agency No. 1-I-641-1067-96 and

conducted an investigation therein. The record also reveals that in

a July 10, 1997 letter, appellant requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge in Agency No. 1-I-641-1067-96. Accordingly, we find

that the agency's decision in dismissing the present matter was proper.

The Commission notes that on appeal appellant expressed concerns

regarding the investigation and processing of the complaint in Agency

No. 1-I-641-1067-96. When allegations regarding improper processing

are raised, the agency is required to refer the complainant to the

agency official responsible for the quality of complaint processing and

these individuals should earnestly attempt to resolve dissatisfaction

with the complaints process as early as possible. See EEO Management

Directive (MD)-110 (4-8); Driscoll v. Department of the Navy, EEOC

Request No. 05940179 (December 21, 1994). The Commission has held that

allegations of improper processing are not processable as separate and

independent allegations of discrimination and must be processed with the

underlying complaint. The Commission has also held that allegations that

an agency improperly investigated a complaint do not support independent

allegations of improper processing, but must be addressed before, during,

or after the hearing or on appeal from a decision issued thereafter.

Kleinman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05940579 (September 22,

1994).

Finally, the Commission notes that on appeal, appellant also appears to

be raising other allegations of discrimination. Appellant is advised

that if he wishes to pursue these matters further, he should contact an

EEO Counselor, if he has not already done so.

Consistent with our discussion herein, the agency's final decision

is AFFIRMED.

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. 14, 1999

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

1The OWBPA amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),

effective October 16, 1990, and provides the minimum requirements for

waiver of ADEA claims. Juhola v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal

No. 01934032 (June 30, 1994).