Shazadi A. Malik, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 2, 1999
01980087 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 2, 1999)

01980087

04-02-1999

Shazadi A. Malik, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Shazadi A. Malik v. United States Postal Service

01980087

April 2, 1999

Shazadi A. Malik, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01980087

) Agency No. 1-K-221-0153-97

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

Appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of

the agency concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination,

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The final agency decision was received by

appellant on September 17, 1997. The appeal was postmarked September

18, 1997. Accordingly, the appeal is timely (see 29 C.F.R. �1614.402(a)),

and is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960, as amended.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly dismissed appellant's

complaint for failure to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

Appellant contacted an EEO counselor on July 9, 1997, regarding

allegations of discrimination. Specifically, appellant alleged that she

was discriminated against when (1) on June 18, 1997 she became aware

that an EEO official had violated her rights under MD-110, Chapter 4,

sec. III, Processing of Partially Dismissed complaints; (2) an EEO

official engaged in a chain conspiracy to deny appellant due process

of law. In allegation (3) of appellant's complaint, she requests that

the agency EEO office hire an investigator to complete the investigation

into two prior complaints filed by her. Informal efforts to resolve

appellant's concerns were unsuccessful. Accordingly, on August 6, 1997,

appellant filed a formal complaint alleging that she was the victim

of unlawful employment discrimination on the bases of race (unspecified),

color (unspecified), national origin (unspecified), sex (female) and

reprisal (prior EEO activity).

On September 9, 1997, the agency issued a final decision dismissing

appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the

agency determined that appellant had not been harmed in terms of a term,

condition, or privilege of employment.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a) provides, in relevant part, that

an agency shall dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that fails to

state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved

employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she has been

discriminated against by that agency because of race, color, religion,

sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. �1614.103;

�1614.106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has long

defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm or loss

with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which

there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request

No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994). The Commission finds that the agency's

September 9, 1997 decision dismissing appellant's complaint on the basis

of failure to state a claim is proper pursuant to the provisions of 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(a).

The record shows that appellant alleged that she had been discriminated

against on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and reprisal for

prior activity when the agency investigated her prior EEO complaints in an

improper manner. Appellant specifically alleged that the agency engaged

in a chain conspiracy to deny her due process of law. Appellant further

alleged that the agency violated EEOC Management Directive 110 (MD-110)

(October 22, 1992) in its investigation of her prior complaints.

A review of the record shows that appellant is stating her dissatisfaction

with the processing of her prior complaints and has therefore, failed to

state a claim within the provisions of EEOC Regulations. See Steeves. v.

Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01956381 (May 14, 1996).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision dismissing appellant's complaint for

failure to state a claim is hereby AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth

herein.

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:

April 2, 1999

____________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations