05990635
12-07-2000
Douglas H. Stup, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Capital-Metro Area), Agency.
Douglas H. Stup v. United States Postal Service
05990635
December 7, 2000
.
Douglas H. Stup,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Capital-Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05990635
Appeal No. 01983151
Agency No. 1K-221-0017-98
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Douglas
H. Stup v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01983151
(March 4, 1999).<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).
Complainant alleged that he had been discriminated against on the bases
of race (White), color (white), sex (male), age (46) and reprisal for
prior EEO activity when: (1) on September 10, 1997, a supervisor yelled
at him to move mail faster and to stop talking and just case mail; and
(2) on October 1, 1997, the same supervisor told him to case the mail
faster and to stop talking and just case mail. The appellate decision
affirmed the Final Agency Decision (FAD) which dismissed complainant's
complaint for failure to state a claim.
On reconsideration, complainant argues that this matter is similar to the
Commission's decision in the matter Stup v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01981081 (November 5, 1998) where the Commission found
that he raised incidents sufficiently patterned and pervasive to give
rise to a harassment claim. In Stup v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01981081 (November 5, 1998) complainant alleged four
incidents of discrimination,<2> that were described by him as "continuing
retaliation, harassment, intimidation, threats, and bullying."
Complainant argues that his statements to the EEO counselor, in
addition, to his formal complaint similarly give rise to an allegation
of harassment. We disagree with complainant's reading of his complaints.
In addition to articulating his claims as stated above, complainant
generally argues that his EEO counselor denied him various rights to
which he was entitled. He also argues that the EEO counselor delayed
the complaint process. In addition, complainant requested documentation
of his lack of overtime usage. Complainant did not allege a pattern of
harassment but rather two isolated incidents where he was reprimanded
for poor work performance.
Based upon the record, we find that the appellate decision correctly
affirmed the finding that complainant's claims fail to state a claim
(i.e., complainant failed to show how he was aggrieved). In addition,
with respect to a harassment claim, the incidents cited by complainant
do not give rise to a severe and pervasive hostile work environment.
See Phillips v. Department of Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960030 (July
12, 1996).
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. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01983151 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.
COMPLAINANT'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:
December 7, 2000
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__________________
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.
2 Two of the incidents involved official discussions about poor work
performance.