Zedie E. Ramage, Jr., Complainant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 21, 2000
05a01047 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 21, 2000)

05a01047

11-21-2000

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

05A01047

11-21-00

.

Zedie E. Ramage, Jr.,

Complainant,

v.

William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 05A01047

Appeal No. 01984981

Agency Nos. 1F-937-1016-96; 1F-937-1061-95

Hearing Nos. 370-97-X2235; 370-97-X2236

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 16, 1999, Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. (complainant) timely initiated a

request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to

reconsider the decision in Zedie E. Ramage, Jr. v. William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01984981

(January 21, 1999). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission

may, in its 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).<1> For the reasons set forth

below, the complainant's request is denied.

The issue presented in this request is whether the previous decision

properly dismissed the complaints at issue herein.

Complainant alleged discrimination based on race/color (white),

national origin (German/French/American), sex, and age (DOB 9-17-42),

and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was denied official time

by the agency to represent other employees in the processing of their

EEO complaints. Although the agency processed the instant complaints

on their merits and an AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination,

the previous decision dismissed the complaints and found that complainant

lacked standing to bring an EEO complaint regarding denial of official

time to him.

Complainant has filed a request to reconsider, arguing that his rights

under the Commission's regulations were violated. Specifically,

complainant refers to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(a)-(b). A close reading of

those provisions, however, gives the right to representation and to

official time to the individual, affected complainant and not to his

representative, as complainant asserts. Complainant misread both the

Commission's regulations and case law in support of his contention that

he maintains rights to claim discrimination with regard to representation

of others.

We find that the previous decision properly dismissed the complaints

on the ground that complainant lacked standing and thus failed to

state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). Complainant's claims

concerned his representation of other employees who filed individual

EEO complaints and worked at a different agency facility from his own.

He alleges discrimination when he was denied official time for travel

and representation of those employees. We find that complainant

lacks standing to bring the instant complaints and that he fails

to state a claim. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1). Such a claim lies

with the complainant, and not his or her representative. See Sessoms

v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01973440 (June 11, 1998); Morman

v. Department of the Air Force, Appeal No. 01964629 (March 17, 1997).

CONCLUSION

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. The decision in

EEOC Appeal No. 01984981 (January 21, 1999) 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.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)

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

__11-21-00________________

Date

1On 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.