03a50044
06-29-2005
Habib A. Chaudry, Petitioner, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Habib A. Chaudry v. Department of the Treasury
03A50044
June 29, 2005
.
Habib A. Chaudry,
Petitioner,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Petition No. 03A50044
MSPB No. DA-0432-01-0653-I-1
DECISION
On May 2, 2005, petitioner filed a timely<1> petition with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order
issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning his claim
of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Petitioner,
formerly a Tax Auditor, GS-9, in the agency's Amarillo, Texas office,
alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases of national
origin (Indian) and color (brown) when he was removed from employment
for unacceptable job performance.
On August 24, 2001, petitioner filed a mixed case appeal with the MSPB.
Petitioner did not request a hearing. After review of the record, the
Administrative Judge upheld petitioner's removal, finding in relevant
part that petitioner had adduced no evidence whatsoever to raise an
inference of unlawful discrimination. The Board denied petitioner's
petition for review.
EEOC regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over
mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes
determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303
et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the
MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a
correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy
directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).
Based upon a thorough review of the record, it is the decision of
the Commission to concur with the final decision of the MSPB finding
no discrimination. The Commission finds that the MSPB's decision
constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules, regulations,
and policies governing this matter and is supported by the evidence in
the record as a whole.
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0900)
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,
based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within
thirty (30) calendar days of 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
June 29, 2005
__________________
Date
1It is noted that the MSPB issued its final order on June 26, 2003,
but that petitioner did not file his Petition for Consideration until
May 2, 2005. Although the record reflects that petitioner properly
advised the MSPB of a change in his address, the copy of the MSPB's final
order served on petitioner by certified mail was directed to his previous
address and was returned as undeliverable. There is no evidence that the
MSPB attempted further service on petitioner. Petitioner states, without
contradiction, that he did not receive a copy of the MSPB's final order
until April 29, 2005, though the intercession of his senator's office.
Based upon the foregoing, the Commission deems the petition timely filed.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(b).