Patsy Potuto, Jr., Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 29, 1998
01982165 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 29, 1998)

01982165

10-29-1998

Patsy Potuto, Jr., Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Patsy Potuto, Jr., )

Appellant, )

)

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01982165

) Agency No. 4C-175-0021-98

)

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

Based on a review of the record, we find that the agency properly

dismissed appellant's complaint, pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(a), for failure to state a claim. Appellant alleged that

the agency's EEO Counselor subjected appellant to discrimination on the

basis of "collusion and interference with due process." Appellant raised

seventeen (17) allegations of improprieties in the processing of prior

EEO complaints he filed and/or raised with the EEO Counselor.

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.103(a) provides that individual and

class complaints of employment discrimination and retaliation prohibited

by Title VII (discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion,

sex and national origin), the ADEA (discrimination on the basis of

age when the aggrieved individual is at least forty years of age),

the Rehabilitation Act (discrimination on the basis of disability),

or the Equal Pay Act (sex-based wage discrimination) shall be processed

in accordance with this part. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.101(b)

provides that no person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any

practice made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII)

(42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.), the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. �206(d)) or the

Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. �791 et seq.) or for participating in any

stage of administrative or judicial proceedings under these statutes.

In the instant case, appellant raised, as a basis for his complaint,

"collusion and interference with due process." This basis is not

recognized under the EEO regulations at 29 C.F.R. �1614. Moreover,

the seventeen allegations raised by appellant concern the processing

of prior complaints he filed and/or raised. The Commission has held

that an allegation which relates to the processing of a previously

filed complaint does not state an independent allegation of employment

discrimination. See Kleinman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No.

05940579 (September 22, 1994); Story v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01965883 (March 13, 1997). If a complainant is dissatisfied with

the processing of his pending complaint, he should be referred to the

agency official responsible for the quality of complaints processing.

Agency officials should earnestly attempt to resolve dissatisfaction

with the complaints process as early and expeditiously as possible.

See EEO MD 110 (4-8). Furthermore, given the nature of appellant's

allegations of improper processing, we find that the proper method for

addressing such matters would be within the continued processing of the

previously filed complaint or on appeal from the final agency decision

issued therein. Any remedial relief to which appellant would be entitled

would necessarily involve the processing of the underlying complaint.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the agency properly dismissed

appellant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a). Accordingly,

the agency's final decision dismissing appellant's complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

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

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

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

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

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR DAYS of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)

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:

Oct. 29, 1998

____________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations