05A00632
10-20-2000
Donald M. Durkin v. U.S. Postal Service
05A00632
October 20, 2000
.
Donald M. Durkin,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00632
Appeal No. 01983707
Agency No. HI-0043-94
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant filed a request with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Donald
M. Durkin v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01983707 (March 23,
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.<2> The decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 01983707 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.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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 ORDEPARTMENT
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
October 20, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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.
2In his statement, complainant challenges the previous decision
claiming that the agency's investigation was inadequate and that the
agency improperly handled his case. We note that complainant raised
these same concerns on appeal, and that the previous decision advised
complainant to bring these matters to the attention of the agency official
responsible for EEO complaint processing. We again advise complainant
that this is the proper venue for addressing these concerns. Moreover,
many of complainant's statements appear to address a previous complaint
adjudicated before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In this regard,
we advise complainant to bring these stated concerns to the attention
of the AJ, or responsible agency EEO official, as appropriate.