05a21273
03-10-2003
Jeremiah J. Callaghan, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Jeremiah J. Callaghan v. United States Postal Service
05A21273
03-10-03
.
Jeremiah J. Callaghan,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A21273
Appeal No. 01A03794
Agency No. 1A-089-0013-98
Hearing No. 170-99-8211X
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On September 10, 2002, Jeremiah J. Callaghan (complainant) timely
initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
to reconsider the decision in Jeremiah J. Callaghan v. John E. Potter,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03794
(September 6, 2002). 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).
Before us is complainant's request for reconsideration of the
Commission's previous decision, which found that the summary judgment
decision of the Administrative Judge (AJ) was correct and appropriate.
Complainant claimed that the agency discriminated against complainant
based on race/color (white), national origin (Irish-American), disability
(depression), sex, age (DOB 3-1-31), and reprisal when the agency
reactivated its termination notice and removed complainant effective
April 10, 1998.
Complainant and the agency had entered into an agreement on October 31,
1997, whereby a termination notice dated June 4, 1997, would be held
in abeyance for a two-year period unless complainant had four or more
unscheduled absences in a three-month period.<1> When complainant
had more than four absences in the January-March 1998 period, a fact
acknowledged by complainant, the agency reactivated its termination
action. In his request, complainant argued that his absences were
justified and that the agency wanted to get rid of him.
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. 01A03794 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the 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
___03-10-03_______________
Date
1In the agreement, complainant also waived his right of further appeal
to the Merit Systems Protection Board, in the event that he breached the
agreement and was removed. After his removal, he appealed to the MSPB,
and, on May 11, 1999, the MSPB affirmed dismissal of his appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See EEOC Petition No. 03990095 (June 14, 2000),
concurring with the Board's action.