03A60004
01-30-2006
Charles R. Jordan, Petitioner, v. Elaine Chao, Secretary, Department of Labor, Agency.
Charles R. Jordan,
Petitioner,
v.
Elaine Chao,
Secretary,
Department of Labor,
Agency.
Petition No. 03A60004
MSPB No. SF-3443-05-0161-I-1
DECISION
On September 24, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) asking for review of
a Final Order issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
concerning his claim against the agency.[1]
A review of the initial decision of the MSPB reveals that the petitioner
claimed that the agency wrongly denied his claims of workers' compensation
benefits and conspired with the Department of the Air Force and the United
States Postal Service (USPS) to have him separated from the USPS in 1995.
The initial decision explained that the petitioner contended that the
agency took part in a conspiracy to have him separated from the USPS when
the Postal Inspection Service and the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations secretly videotaped him performing physical labor for the
Air Force while supposedly disabled from performing similar work for the
USPS. The initial decision noted that the petitioner already litigated his
separation from the USPS several times. The initial decision indicated
that while the petitioner named the Department of Labor as the respondent
agency in the appeal, he did not allege it was ever his employer. It
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The initial decision was
dated December 17, 2004. The petitioner's petition for review of the
initial decision was denied by the MSPB on September 2, 2005.
The petitioner filed an appeal from the MSPB's final order with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which was docketed on
September 30, 2005 as docket number 05-3385.
The petitioner's petition of the MSPB's final decision is denied on the
grounds that he filed an appeal to review the same decision with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is still pending.[2]
Accordingly, the Commission denies the petitioner's petition for
review.[3]
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0900)
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,
based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within thirty
(30) calendar days of 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
January 30, 2006
__________________
Date
-----------------------
[1] Due to the confusing language in the petitioner's petition, the EEOC
initially docketed the petition as being against the United States Postal
Service. It is against the Department of Labor.
[2] It was still pending as of January 25, 2006.
[3] While this petition was pending, on November 23, 2005 the petitioner
filed with the EEOC a "petition for review" of a United States Department
of Labor, Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) decision dated
October 20, 2005. By letter dated November 17, 2005, he was advised by the
Deputy Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
that he could appeal the ECAB decision to the EEOC. However, the
Commission does not have jurisdiction over petitions challenging ECAB
decisions.