05a10053
03-23-2001
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr., Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. v. United States Postal Service
05A10053
03-23-01
.
Zedie E. Ramage, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10053
Appeal No. 01A01497
Agency No. 1F-937-0006-98
Hearing No. 370-99-X2056
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On October 5, 2000, Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. (complainant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the
decision in Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A01497
(August 29, 2000). EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners
may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous decision where the
party demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of
the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). For the reasons set forth below,
the complainant's request is denied.
The issue presented is whether complainant's request meets the criteria
for reconsideration of the previous decision.
The previous decision found that complainant failed to state a claim
when he claimed that the agency denied him official time to represent a
co-worker who worked at a different agency facility from complainant.<1>
The previous decision explained that complainant lacked standing to
bring an EEO complaint on this question, because the right to official
time lies with the complaining part and not his or her representative.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.605
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision,
the requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish
that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met.
The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is
narrow, and it is not a form of second appeal. Lopez v. Department of
the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990).
Complainant's request repeats his allegation that he was denied
official time to represent another employee. As set out in the previous
decision, complainant lacks standing to advance this claim. See Morman
v. Department of the Air Force, Appeal No. 01964629 (March 17, 1997);
Wildberger v. Small Business Administration, Request No. 05960761 (October
8, 1998); Sessoms v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973440
(June 11, 1998) ("...where appellant was merely the EEO representative,
and not the complainant, we note that he did not have standing...because
the right to raise such matters lies with the complainant, not his or
her representative.").
CONCLUSION
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the
complainant's request. The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A01497 (August 29, 2000) remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal from a decision of
the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON 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
__03-23-01________________
Date
1The EEOC Administrative Judge recommended that
the agency dismiss the instant complaint for failure to state a claim, but
the agency addressed the matter on its merits, finding no discrimination.
The previous decision found that the complaint is more properly addressed
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).