0520120588
02-04-2013
Aisha L. Glover, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Aisha L. Glover,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120588
Appeal No. 0120121695
Agency No. 1J-632-0002-12
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Aisha L. Glover v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121695 (August 3, 2012). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the requesting party demonstrates 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's complaint on the basis that her EEO contact was untimely. It found that her removal from the Agency was effective April 15, 2010, but that she did not contact an EEO Counselor until November 11, 2011, and that she did not present persuasive arguments or evidence which warranted an extension of the 45-day time limit to contact an EEO Counselor.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that although her removal was finalized as effective on April 15, 2010, it was not until the grievance and arbitration process was completed that she was actually removed. She argued that she was still an Agency employee until she found out that her grievance had been denied at Step 3 in October 2010, and her case was dismissed from arbitration in February 2011. She also argued that the comparison employee whom she alleged received more favorable treatment for the same infractions received that better treatment due to his status as a military veteran. The Agency did not submit any statement in opposition to Complainant's request for reconsideration.
We find that Complainant's request for reconsideration fails to show that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the Agency. We note that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." E.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007); EEO Management Directive for Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, �VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). Complainant has not shown that the previous decision was erroneous in its conclusion that she did not contact an EEO Counselor in a timely manner. Although Complainant argued that she was not actually removed until the grievance and arbitration process was completed, she claimed that she was notified of the withdrawal of her case from arbitration in February 2011. Her EEO contact was not until November 2011, which was substantially beyond 45 days from that point. Additionally, she claimed that her status as a non-veteran was the reason she did not receive more favorable treatment. We note that the federal anti-discrimination laws enforced by the Commission do not protect employees on the basis of their status as a veteran, or non-veteran, as the case may be.
Therefore, after reviewing 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. 0120121695 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
February 4, 2013
Date
2
0520120588
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120588