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.