03a00132
10-31-2000
Thomas V. Oslowski Petitioner, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Thomas V. Oslowski v. USPS
03A00132
October 31, 2000
.
Thomas V. Oslowski
Petitioner,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Petition No. 03A00132
MSPB No. PH-1221-00-0290-W-1
DENIAL OF CONSIDERATION
On September 18, 2000, Thomas V. Oslowski (hereinafter referred to
as petitioner) filed a petition with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) regarding the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB
or the Board) final decision on his case. The petition is governed
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and EEOC Regulations at 29
C.F.R. �1614.101 et seq.
Petitioner filed an appeal with the MSPB dated May 15, 2000 alleging
that a letter he received from a management official in 1977 was
insulting. Petitioner's appeal to the Board did not specifically raise
discrimination. Rather, petitioner noted that the �Equal Employment
Opportunity branch is under the influence of the personnel office....�
Petitioner did not identify any basis of discrimination and checked �no�
where the form asked �Do you believe that the action you are appealing
violated the law?� The MSPB dismissed petitioner's appeal, finding that
his individual right of action by engaging in whistleblowing activity
was not within the Board's jurisdiction because the relevant law did not
become effective until 1989. In addition, the Board found there was no
personnel action taken against petitioner. When petitioner requested
a review of the initial decision, the MSPB denied the request on the
grounds that it failed to meet the statutory criteria therefor.
EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over
allegations of discrimination raised in connection with an action
appealable to the MSPB. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.302. The Commission has
no jurisdiction over procedural matters decided by the Board, as is the
case here, where it determined that petitioner's appeal did not contain
matters within its jurisdiction. Because the MSPB did not address any
matters within the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission has no
jurisdiction to review petitioner's case. Consequently, the Commission
denies the petition for review.<1>
STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS
PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0400)
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,
based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, WITHIN
THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of 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
1The Commission notes that the record contains letters from two different
Commission offices explaining the federal EEO process to petitioner and
directing him on how to file an EEO complaint if he so desired.