Lamar W. Sessoms, Jr., Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 14, 2000
01986883 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 14, 2000)

01986883

07-14-2000

Lamar W. Sessoms, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Lamar W. Sessoms, Jr. v. United States Postal Service

01986883

July 14, 2000

Lamar W. Sessoms, Jr., )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01986883 et al <1>

) Agency No. 1K-221-1004-97 et al <2>

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

The complainant timely filed an appeal with this Commission from

four final decisions, all dated August 11, 1998, and one decision

dated March 12, 1999, which the agency issued pursuant to Volume 64

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

to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107)).<3> The Commission accepts

the appeal in accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to

be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). The Commission consolidates the

appeals for decision pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)

(to be codified as 29 C.F.R. �1614.606).

The August 11, 1998 final agency decisions dismissed claims 1 and 2 of

agency complaint number 1-K-221-0004-97; claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of agency

complaint number 1-K-221-1037-96; claim 1 of agency complaint number

1-K-221-1063-96; and claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of agency complaint

number 1-K-221-0028-98 for failure to state a claim of employment

discrimination. In so doing, the agency relied on the Commission's

prior decision in Sessoms v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

Nos. 01973440 et al (June 11, 1998), request for reconsideration pending,

EEOC Request No. 05980973. The March 12, 1999 decision dismissed claim 3

of agency complaint number 1-K-221-0025-99 for failure to state a claim.

Although direct appeals of decisions partially dismissing a complaint are

no longer permissible under the regulations revised on November 9, 1999,

the agency has informed the Commission that the remainder of the complaint

is not pending before the agency or an Administrative Judge. Therefore,

we shall consider the instant appeal because there are apparently no

remaining claims from the instant complaint pending anywhere in the

administrative EEO process.

In the cited Commission decision, the Commission affirmed the dismissal of

more than 150 of the complainant's claims for abuse of process, including

claims that the agency had denied schedule changes which the complainant

allegedly needed to perform EEO representational duties on behalf of

other employees. The Commission remanded two claims for processing,

one of which involved the denial of official time for the processing the

complainant's own complaint. The Commission stated that the denial of

official time states a separately processable claim alleging a violation

of the Commission's regulations without requiring a determination of

whether the action was motivated by discrimination. The Commission

remanded the claim to the agency for a determination as to whether the

complainant was denied a reasonable amount of official time to submit

his EEO complaint. The Commission found that the complainant did not

have standing to raise claims pertaining to the agency's processing of

other employee's complaints, regardless of whether the matters presented

processable claims such as official time denials, because the right

to raise such matters lies with the complainant, not with his or her

representative.

The Commission finds that the agency properly dismissed the claims at

issue in this appeal for failure to state a claim. Some claims concerning

matters pertaining to the agency's processing of other employees'

EEO complaints, including denials of requested official time; denials

of requested schedule changes; and the circumstances surrounding the

agency's denials. Such matters must be raised by the complainants whom

the complainant was representing. One claim concerns the agency's

alleged failure to comply with a Commission Order. The proper way

to obtain enforcement of a Commission order is to first contact the

Compliance Officer assigned to enforce the decision and then, if the

matter is not satisfactorily resolved, to file a petition for enforcement

under 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,660 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 �1614.503). The remaining claims

concern an alleged failure to approve the complainant's information

request for the processing of a grievance and the alleged denial of

reasonable time to perform the complainant's duties as a union steward.

These matters can only be resolved in the collective bargaining agreement

process. For the reasons stated above, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's

dismissal of the complainant's claims.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED

WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR

DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF

RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management

Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).

All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of

Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box

19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604). The request or opposition must

also include proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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:

July 14, 2000

DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

_________________ ___________________________

DATE

1This decision addresses EEOC appeal numbers 01986883, 01986884,

01986886, 01986887, and 01993290.

2This decision addresses agency complaint numbers 1-K-221-1004-97,

1-K-221-1037-96, 1-K-221-1063-96, 1-K-221-0028-98, and 1-K-221-1025-99

3On 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.