Phillip E. Sharpe, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 25, 2000
01a01441 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 25, 2000)

01a01441

08-25-2000

Phillip E. Sharpe, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Phillip E. Sharpe v. United States Postal Service

01A01441

August 25, 2000

.

Phillip E. Sharpe,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A01441

Agency No. 1-D-271-0052-99

DECISION

Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency's decision dated October

28, 1999, dismissing claim (1) in complainant's complaint due to untimely

EEO contact and claims (2) through (5) for failure to state a claim is

proper, pursuant to the regulations set forth at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,

37,656 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC

Regulations 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.107(a)(1) and (2)).<1>

The agency, in its decision, defined the claims of complainant's complaint

as whether complainant was discriminated against based on race, age,

and disability when: (1) on January 22, 1999, management held a meeting

and informed the employees in pay location 230 that they proposed to

abolish or revert jobs due to automation, and that the three jobs which

included his job would have relief duties added; (2) on March 10, 1999,

he filed an injury due to job related stress by over demands of being

told he must learn new job responsibilities; (3) on May 19, 1999, he was

further stressed out when management failed to have someone available for

the supervisor to confer with in order to settle his case in mediation;

(4) on unspecified dates, management sent mail out to various associate

offices for part time employees to work, thereby giving them more hours

of work and he felt this was not the most efficient way to process

the mail; and (5) on March 19, 1999, a Labor Relations Specialist, did

not advance his grievance to the Step 2 level and he heard the Labor

Relations Specialist had no plans to settle his grievance because the

Labor Relations Specialist thinks complainant should retire.

With regard to claim (1), the agency dismissed it since the alleged

incident occurred on January 22, 1999, but complainant, a Distribution

Clerk, PS-5, at pay location 230, did not contact an EEO Counselor until

April 22, 1999, which was beyond the 45-day time limit. On appeal,

complainant does not provide adequate justification to warrant an

extension of the time limit for initiating EEO contact. Furthermore, it

is noted that complainant indicates on appeal that the alleged incident

did not actually occur until March 10, 1999, which was raised in claim

(2), described below. Based on the foregoing, the agency's dismissal

of claim (1) was proper.

With regard to claim (2), complainant indicated that he worked on the

belt, but on March 10, 1999, he was ordered to be trained for relief on

registry job. The EEO Counselor's Report indicates that complainant was

not trained for the registry job; rather another employee volunteered to

be trained for the registry relief duties/job. Complainant on appeal does

not dispute this statement. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds

that complainant is not aggrieved with regard to the alleged statement

which was not implemented. The Commission has consistently held that a

remark or comment unaccompanied by concrete action is not a direct and

personal deprivation sufficient to render an individual aggrieved for

the purposes of Title VII. Henry v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05940695

(February 9, 1995).

With regard to claim (3), it appears that the alleged action concerned

his complaint mediation processing. Specifically, complainant alleged

that neither a Plan Manager nor a Labor Relations Specialist was present

during the mediation conference at issue. It is noted that under the

regulations, the parties are encouraged to mediate/settle a complaint.

However, the Commission finds that the agency's failure to mediate/settle

the complaint does not in and of itself constitute an actionable claim.

Thus, the Commission finds that claim (3) fails to state a claim within

the purview of the regulations.

With regard to claim (4), complainant indicated that he was injured as

a result of the alleged incident since his job is being abolished while

part-time clerks were getting more hours working on his job. There is

no evidence in the record that his job was abolished. Furthermore,

complainant does not allege that his duties were actually taken away as

a result of the alleged incident. Thus, the Commission finds that claim

(4) failed to state a claim.

With regard to claim (5), the Commission finds that it fails to state a

claim since it constitutes a collateral attack on the grievance process

and involves actions inextricably intertwined with the processing and

administration of complainant's grievance. It is well settled that an

employee may not use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral

attack on the grievance process. Kleinman v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 24, 1993).

Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 25, 2000

__________________

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 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.