James D. Walker, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 10, 2009
0520090582 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 10, 2009)

0520090582

12-10-2009

James D. Walker, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.


James D. Walker,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520090582

Appeal No. 0120082867

Hearing No. 490200800003X

Agency No. 1H-381-0042-07

DENIAL

On July 25, 2009, complainant requested that the Commission reconsider

the decision in James D. Walker v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 0120082867 (September 9, 2008). EEOC Regulations provide that the

Commission may, in its discretion, grant a Request to reconsider (RTR) 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). For the reasons that follow,

the Commission DENIES complainant's RTR.1

The Commission's regulations state that a complainant must submit a RTR

within 30 days of receipt of the prior decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b).

In addition, as stated on the Certificate of Mailing, the Commission

assumes receipt by the complainant within five calendar days; in this

case, on or before September 14, 2008, with any RTR due on or before

October 14, 2008. In the RTR, complainant acknowledged that the events

and reasons for his removal were true and that his RTR was filed untimely.

However, complainant, through his current representative, cites several

extenuating reasons for Commission review and reconsideration:

(a) his representative died in February 2009, and complainant became

confused about his legal options;

(b) complainant was indicted in a criminal complaint on June 26, 2007;

(c) his vehicle was stolen in April 2007, with all documents in support

of his defense;

(d) the union provided no assistance to him;

(e) his financial situation did not allow him to obtain other counsel;

(f) complainant's mental state did not allow him to respond to the

appellate decision; and

(g) complainant's health, and that of his mother, restrained him from

responding to the appellate decision.

Even if any of these reasons could account for an nine-month delay in

filing the RTR at issue, complainant's submission provides no probative

evidence that complainant's physical or mental status prohibited him

from taking action, such as a doctor's report or other medical testimony

demonstrating that complainant was not capable and unable to protect

his rights during the period from October 2008, through July 2009.

Further, complainant's explanations were somewhat disingenuous; that

is, as to reasons (a) and (d), his representative's incapacity or

the union's failure to assist do not excuse complainant's timeliness,

since he is at all times responsible for prosecution of his complaint.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(e). As to reason (b), complainant's indictment

occurred in June 2007, over a year before the appellate decision was

issued. We note that complainant filed his appeal below in a timely

manner on June 13, 2008. Finally, the impact of reasons (f) and (g)

is doubtful at best, given that these events took place in May 2006.

None of the reasons proffered by complainant, taken singly or together,

justify an extension of time for filing the RTR.

CONCLUSION

After review of the previous decision and the record herein and for

the above reasons, the Commission finds that complainant's request is

untimely, and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request.

The decision of the Commission in Appeal No. 0120082867 remains the

decision of the Commission. There is no further right of administrative

appeal on the decision of the Commission on a Request to Reconsider.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS ON A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0408)

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 (Z1008)

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 from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

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 with

the Court 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

December 10, 2009

Date

1 Complainant claimed that the agency discriminated against him on the

bases of race (Native American), national origin (Chickamauga Cherokee),

sex (male), color (unspecified), disability (heart surgery, bipolar

disorder), age (65), and in reprisal for prior protected activity.

After an investigation of the complaint, the EEOC Administrative Judge

(AJ) issued a decision without a hearing, finding that the agency stated

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for removing complainant and that

he did not demonstrate pretext.

??

??

??

??

2

0520090582

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

3

0520090582