05a00758
02-12-2001
Edward Jones, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Edward Jones v. United States Postal Service
05A00758
02-12-01
.
Edward Jones,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00758
Appeal No. 01995638
Agency No. 4H-335-0040-99
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On May 12, 2000, Edward Jones (complainant) timely initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the
decision in Edward Jones v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01995638 (April 14, 2000).
EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion,
reconsider any previous decision where the party demonstrates that:
(1) the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).<1> For the reasons set forth below, the complainant's
request is denied.
The issue presented is whether complainant's request meets the criteria
for reconsideration of the previous decision.
Complainant filed a formal complaint on December 7, 1998, alleging
discrimination based on sex when he was issued notice of a seven-day
suspension.<2> Following an investigation, complainant requested a
final agency decision (FAD). The agency issued its FAD on June 1, 1999,
finding no discrimination. The previous decision affirmed the agency.
Complainant worked as a letter carrier in Tampa, Florida. He was
charged with loud and disruptive misconduct and failure to follow his
supervisor's instructions to turn off his tape recorder. The agency's
Manager, Customer Services, stated that complainant's actions were
disruptive to the operations of the service and that the discipline was
appropriate for his misconduct.
In his request to reconsider, complainant repeats his argument that
the agency's decision was based on the Manager's statement and that the
Manager is not a credible witness. In order to merit the reconsideration
of a prior Commission decision, the requesting party must submit written
argument that tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met. The Commission's scope of review on
a request for reconsideration is narrow, and it is not a form of second
appeal. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749
(September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850
(September 7, 1990).
In the McDonnell Douglas<3> scheme, once the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, the ultimate
burden of persuasion returned to the complainant to demonstrate by
preponderant evidence that the reasons given by the agency for its
actions were pretextual or a sham or disguise for discrimination.
It is the complainant's burden to show that the agency's action
was more likely than not motivated by discrimination, that is, that
the action was influenced by legally impermissible criteria, i.e.,
his sex. Absent a showing that the agency's articulated reason was
used as a tool to discriminate against him, complainant cannot prevail.
After a review of complainant's request and the entire file, we find that
complainant has not submitted probative evidence to demonstrate pretext.
Complainant's statements alone do not demonstrate pretext.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the
complainant's request. The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal
No. 01995638 (April 14, 2000) remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal from a decision of
the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON 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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__02-12-01________________
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.
2Complainant grieved the suspension, and, subsequently, it was reduced
to a letter of warning.
3McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).