Thomas Dillon, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 26, 2001
01996187 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 26, 2001)

01996187

06-26-2001

Thomas Dillon, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Thomas Dillon v. United States Postal Service

01996187

June 26, 2001

.

Thomas Dillon,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01996187

Agency No. 4A-117-0045-99, 4A-117-0058-99

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency

decision dated July 7, 1999, dismissing his complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. In his complaint,

complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases

of age, disability and reprisal when the agency:

Failed to timely respond to his request for counseling;

Improperly processed all of his EEO complaints;

Failed to respond to his requests for information regarding policies

and procedures for EEO cases and Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests;

Failed to respond to his requests for information regarding charges that

were brought against him; and

Downgraded him to a Level 5, part-time Flexible Clerk position.

The agency dismissed claims 1, 2, and 3 pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29

C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim. Specifically,

the agency's final decision (FAD) found that in claims 1, 2, and 3,

complainant challenged the processing of his previously filed complaints.

The agency found therefore that complainant had failed to state a claim

pursuant to EEOC regulations. The FAD also found that complainant's

claim regarding his FOIA requests similarly failed to state a claim.

The agency noted in its decision that the Commission has repeatedly held

that it does not have jurisdiction over the processing of FOIA requests.

Finally, the agency dismissed claims 4 and 5 pursuant to EEOC Regulation

29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds that they stated the same

claims pending before the agency. Specifically, the agency indicates that

complainant's claim that he was not notified of charges pending against

him, and his claim regarding his demotion, were raised by complainant

in a prior mixed case complaint, Agency Case No. 4A-117-0049-99.

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in

relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint 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,

.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).

Upon review, we find that the agency's decision to dismiss claims 1, 2,

and 3 for failure to state a claim was proper. Complainant alleged that

the agency failed to timely respond to his requests for EEO counseling

and generally failed to properly process all of his EEO complaints.

The Commission finds that complainant's claims do not state a justiciable

claim of employment discrimination. Moreover, we point out that Part

1614 of the EEOC Regulations specifically requires the dismissal of a

complaint that alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously

filed complaint. See EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(8).

In addition, the Commission has held that it does not have jurisdiction

over the processing of FOIA requests. Instead, persons having a dispute

regarding such requests should bring any appeals about the processing of

his or her FOIA requests under the appropriate FOIA regulations. Gaines

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970386 (June 13, 1997).

In the instant case, therefore, complainant's allegation that the agency

improperly handled his FOIA request fails to state a claim within the

purview of the EEOC regulations at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.

The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) further provides

that the agency shall dismiss a complaint that states the same claim

that is pending before or has been decided by the agency or Commission.

A review of the record reveals that complainant rased claims 3 and 4 of

the instant complaint in prior mixed case complaint No. 4A-117-0049-99 .

In that regard, we find that the agency's decision dismissing claims 3

and 4 was proper.

Based on a through review of the record, it is the decision of this

Commission that the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED for

the reasons set forth herein.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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 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 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

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

June 26, 2001

__________________

Date