James Carroll, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (S.E./S.W. Areas), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 30, 2000
05a00049 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 30, 2000)

05a00049

03-30-2000

James Carroll, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (S.E./S.W. Areas), Agency.


James Carroll v. United States Postal Service

05A00049

March 30, 2000

James Carroll, )

Complainant, )

) Request No. 05A00049

v. ) Appeal No. 01986768

) Agency No. 4H-310-1033-97

William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 110-98-8016X

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service )

(S.E./S.W. Areas), )

Agency. )

)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On 10/9/99, James Carroll (complainant)initiated a request to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the decision

in James Carroll v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01986768

(9/17/99).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commissioners may,

in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision.

64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)). The party

requesting reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence which

demonstrates that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous

interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will have a

substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the

agency. Complainant's request is denied.

Complainant alleged in his complaint that he was discriminated against

on the bases of race (African-American), when he was removed from the

agency's hiring registry. After a hearing before an EEOC administrative

judge, the AJ issued a recommended decision finding no discrimination.

Specifically, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima

facie case of race discrimination in that he failed to establish that the

individual who removed complainant's name from the hiring registry knew of

complainant's race. Also, complainant failed to prove that the agency's

reasons for removing complainant from its hiring registry was pretext

for race discrimination. The agency maintained that complainant was

disqualified for hiring with the agency due to his failure to establish

a successful work history. For example, he indicated on his application

that he was terminated from employment with the Veteran's Administration

due to work performance, and did not specify any subsequent employment.

Although complainant repeatedly requested reconsideration of the agency's

decision, the decision was not overturned. The agency issued a final

decision adopting the AJ's decision.

The prior decision found no discrimination. In his request for

reconsideration, complainant submits an undated letter from a Veteran's

Administration Adjudication Officer. The letter is entitled, "Employment

Reference," and reports that complainant worked for the agency from

January 23, 1994, until December 30, 1994. It adds that complainant's

performance was satisfactory and that he resigned from the position due

to personal reasons.

After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds complainant's

request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is

the decision of the Commission to deny complainant's request. We find no

clear error in the prior decision, since complainant failed to establish

that the individual who removed him from the hiring register was aware

of his race. The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01986768

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.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)

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,

March 30, 2000

_______________ ______________________

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.