05a01113
02-28-2001
James T. Briley, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
James T. Briley v. United States Postal Service
05A01113
02-28-01
.
James T. Briley,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A01113
Appeal No. 01993365
Agency No. 1F-914-1029-96A
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On June 13, 2000, James T. Briley (complainant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
to reconsider the decision in James T. Briley v. William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01993365
(May 12, 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.
Complainant filed his formal complaint on September 16, 1996, alleging
discrimination based on race (black) when he was instructed to ensure
that the maintenance bicycles were parked in their designated spaces
and when he was issued a letter of warning (LOW) for failure to follow
instructions and insubordination. Initially, this claim was dismissed,
but upon appeal, it was remanded to the agency.<2> EEOC Appeal
No. 01972724 (June 3, 1998). Following an investigation, complainant
was afforded an opportunity to elect a hearing or an immediate decision,
but he did not respond to the agency's notice. The agency issued a
decision finding no discrimination, and complainant filed an appeal.
The previous decision affirmed the agency's final decision.
The agency explained that complainant, Supervisor, Maintenance
Operations, was assigned the task of ensuring that bicycles were placed
in their designated spaces, so that they would be available for agency
operations, and that complainant was issued a LOW upon his failure to
follow instructions. Agency managers stated that individual supervisors
were assigned additional duties as needed.
Complainant has filed a request that the Commission reconsider the
previous decision. Of relevance to the instant matter, complainant
contends that no other supervisor was given the assignment to maintain
the bicycles.<3> The agency did not file comments in response to
complainant's request.
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.
A request for review is not a second opportunity for appeal, and the
Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow.
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 response to the agency's explanation for the assignment given to
complainant to maintain the bicycles, complainant failed to demonstrate
that the assignment was based on prohibited factors or discriminatory
animus, i.e., race. Further, when complainant failed to follow the
instructions concerning the bicycles, he was issued a LOW. Complainant
has not shown that the assignment and subsequent LOW were based on racial
considerations or racial animus.
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. 01993365 (May 12, 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
___02-28-01_______________
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.
2Three other issues in the complaint were accepted for investigation,
and complainant requested a hearing. On August 19, 1998, the EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a summary judgment decision finding no
discrimination. See EEOC Hearing No. 340-97-3742X. The agency issued
its final decision on October 22, 1998, adopting the AJ's decision.
The record shows that complainant received this decision on October 31,
1998, and did not file an appeal.
3Complainant also referred to claims considered in EEOC Hearing
No. 340-97-3742X before the AJ. See fn. 2, supra.