Thomasv.Oslowski Petitioner, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 31, 2000
03a00132 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2000)

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.