Thanh Truong, Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 31, 2000
05a00511 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2000)

05a00511

10-31-2000

Thanh Truong, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area), Agency.


Thanh Truong v. United States Postal Service

05A00511

October 31, 2000

.

Thanh Truong,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Pacific Area),

Agency.

Request No. 05A00511

Appeal No. 01985562

Agency No. 4F-940-1204-95

Hearing No. 370-96-X2525

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Thanh Truong

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01985562 (February

29, 2000), which affirmed the Administrative Judge's finding of no

discrimination in this case.<1> In his complaint, complainant alleged

that he was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian), national

origin (Vietnam), disability (perceived psychological) and in reprisal for

prior EEO activity, when the agency terminated his employment as a City

Letter Carrier effective June 22, 1995. 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).

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

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

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. We note

that nothing submitted in support of this request establishes that the

prior decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of law or

fact, or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,

or operations of the agency.

Complainant asserts that the Administrative Judge's summary decision was

inappropriate in light of the fact that the parties disputed whether the

responsible management official had knowledge of complainant's prior

EEO activity during the relevant time. Complainant also asserts that

the AJ's decision utilized an erroneous reprisal analysis. We find

that complainant is incorrect in both assertions. First, we note that

complainant requested a decision based on the record and that other

than his bare assertion that the responsible management official had

knowledge of his prior EEO activity, the record provides no support for

the assertion. As to the purported misinterpretation of the reprisal law

by the Administrative Judge, after reviewing the recommended decision, we

find that the Administrative Judge correctly analyzed the reprisal issue.

As a result of the foregoing, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01985562

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

October 31, 2000

Date

1 On 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.