Robert L. Siler, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 3, 2000
05980699 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 3, 2000)

05980699

11-03-2000

Robert L. Siler, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.


Robert L. Siler v. United States Postal Service

05980699

November 3, 2000

.

Robert L. Siler,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Mid-Atlantic Area),

Agency.

Request No. 05980699

Appeal No. 01964183

Agency No. 4D-270-1088-94

Hearing No. 140-95-8070X

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Robert

L. Siler v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01964183

(March 12, 1998).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,

in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision where the

requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).

In the underlying complaint, complainant contended that he was

discriminated against based on race (Black) and physical disability

("surgery on both arms"/carpal tunnel syndrome) when, from January 10

through January 18, 1994, he was required to work overtime although

he was not on the overtime desired list. Following a hearing, an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision finding no discrimination,

and the FAD adopted the AJ's findings and conclusions. The prior decision

affirmed the FAD.

In his request for reconsideration, complainant contends, inter alia: (1)

the AJ was biased against complainant, as indicated by various evidentiary

rulings and comments she made during the hearing; (2) the AJ made legally

erroneous evidentiary and procedural rulings; and (3) the AJ erred in

finding that complainant failed to request disability accommodation.

After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the

previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that

complainant has not raised any matters not previously considered by

the Commission. 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.

In so concluding, we do not reach whether or not the AJ correctly

concluded that complainant is an individual with a disability within the

meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. We find that even assuming arguendo

complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on

race or disability, he failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the

evidence that the agency's proffered reasons for the challenged actions

are a pretext for discrimination, or that he requested and was denied

reasonable accommodation. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal

No. 01964183 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further

right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this

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

November 3, 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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.