04A10012
07-24-2001
David T. Murphy v. United States Postal Service 04A10012 July 24, 2001 . David T. Murphy, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
David T. Murphy v. United States Postal Service
04A10012
July 24, 2001
.
David T. Murphy,
Petitioner,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Petition No. 04A10012
Hearing No. 150-95-8015X
Appeal No. 01966390
Agency No. 1-H-329-1024-94
DECISION ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
On May 23, 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission docketed this
petition to examine the enforcement of an order set forth in David T.
Murphy v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01966390 (June
10, 1998). This petition for enforcement is accepted by the Commission
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503. Petitioner alleges that the agency
failed to fully comply with the Commission's order for relief as set
forth in that decision.
Petitioner filed a complaint in which he claimed that the agency
discriminated against him when: (1) he was not detailed to the position
of Contract Technician (CT) in October 1993; (2) he was not detailed to
the position in December 1993; and (3) he was not selected for promotion
to a CT position on April 6, 1994, on the bases of his sex (male) and age
(50) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The agency investigated the complaint and referred it to an administrative
judge, who held a hearing and issued a recommended decision finding
discrimination as to issue (1) and no discrimination as to issues (2)
and (3) and ordering relief. The administrative judge's findings and
conclusions were affirmed on appeal in David T. Murphy v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01966390 (June 10, 1998). The order for
relief in the initial appellate decision required the agency inter alia to
train the Manager of Distribution Operation (MDO), who was found to have
discriminated against petitioner. Petitioner now requests enforcement
of that order.
While petitioner alleges new incidences of discrimination, he only
alleges one violation of our order in Appeal No. 01966390. Specifically,
petitioner suggests that MDO did not receive
training as provided by paragraph 2 of our order. Petitioner's assertion
is directly contradicted
by the agency's report of final compliance, dated May 19, 1999, which
includes documentary evidence that MDO received training in compliance
with our order. Petitioner's request for enforcement includes requests
for promotion, leave restoration, and compensatory damages. However,
these requests are not remedial in that they do not flow from our finding
of discrimination. Rather, petitioner's requests relate to subsequent
occurrences such as non-selection for promotion and stress related leave.
As to petitioner's request for compensatory damages, we note that our
compliance records do not demonstrate that petitioner cooperated with
the agency, as he was ordered to do, to determine his entitlement to
such damages.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after reviewing the instant petition for enforcement,
the agency's response, the previous decision, and the entire record,
the Commission finds the agency to have fully complied with its order in
David T. Murphy v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01966390
(June 10, 1998). The Commission denies the petition for enforcement.
PETITIONER'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
July 24, 2001
Date