Frank H. Hill, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 18, 2000
05981149 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 18, 2000)

05981149

10-18-2000

Frank H. Hill, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Frank H. Hill v. U.S. Postal Service

05981149

October 18, 2000

.

Frank H. Hill,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 05981149

Appeal No. 01980785

Agency No. 1-G-761-0095-97

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Frank

H. Hill v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01980785

(August 19, 1998).<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).

On August 12, 1997, complainant filed a formal complaint against the

agency claiming unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of

disability and reprisal. Specifically, complainant claimed that the

agency submitted false and misleading information to the Office of

Workers' Compensation (OWCP), which then terminated his injury claim on

April 25, 1997.

The agency issued a final decision on September 19, 1997, dismissing the

complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that OWCP's termination

was not based on a statement or action of the agency, and that therefore

complainant did not suffer a personal harm.

Complainant appealed the final agency decision, arguing that the agency

submitted false and misleading information to OWCP, and that his claim

was terminated because of this information.

In its previous decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal,

finding that complainant failed to state claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �

1614.107(a).

In his request for reconsideration, complainant argues that the record

is inadequate, and that additional evidence would demonstrate that the

agency deliberately submitted false information to OWCP.

The Commission determines that the instant claim amounts to a collateral

attack on an OWCP decision. Where a complainant claims that the agency

discriminated in a manner pertaining to the merits of the workers'

compensation claim, for example, by submitting paperwork containing

allegedly false information, then the complaint does not state an EEO

claim. Pirozzi v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970146

(October 23, 1998)(allegedly false statements made by agency to

OWCP during OWCP's processing of a workers' compensation claim goes

to merits of compensation claim); Hogan v. Department of the Army,

EEOC Request No. 05940407 (September 29, 1994) (reviewing a claim that

agency officials provided misleading statements to OWCP would require the

Commission to essentially determine what workers' compensation benefits

the complainant would likely have received); Reloj v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960545 (June 15, 1998) (claim that

agency's provision of false information to the OWCP resulted in denial

of benefits is a collateral attack on OWCP's decision and, thus, fails

to state a claim). Because complainant's complaint in the case at hand

concerns allegedly false information provided to the OWCP by the agency,

the matter addressed in complainant's complaint fails to state a claim.

Accordingly, 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. 01980785 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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

October 18, 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.