05980971
11-20-1998
Cheryl A. Duplechain, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cheryl A. Duplechain v. United States Postal Service
05980971
November 20, 1998
Cheryl A. Duplechain, )
Appellant, )
) Request No. 05980971
v. ) Appeal No. 01974062
) Agency No. 4-G-700-0059-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
__________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 15, 1998, Cheryl A. Duplechain (appellant) initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider
the decision in Duplechain v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01974062 (June
30, 1998). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commissioners may,
in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision.
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration must submit
written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more of
the following three criteria: new and material evidence is available
that was not readily available when the previous decision was issued,
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved an erroneous
interpretation of law, regulation or material fact, or misapplication of
established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the previous decision
is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential
implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). Appellant's request is denied.
The record indicates that appellant contacted an EEO counselor on October
30, 1996, complaining of discrimination based on race (Black) and Color
(Black), when she was told that she could not work a dual appointment
but then another employee was allowed to work one. In her complaint,
appellant stated that she asked about the dual appointment on April 10,
1996 and although she was told that she could not work a dual position,
management was allowing another employee to do so. The agency dismissed
the complaint for failure to contact the EEO counselor in a timely manner,
and the previous decision affirmed without substantive comment.
In her request for reconsideration, appellant asserts, for the first
time, that she was not familiar with the EEO process, and that she
asked around and "someone told her there may be a time limit" on when
she should file. However, appellant then continues to explain that "some
time passed" as she waited to get answers from other offices about job
openings. Appellant asserts that when she did not receive any answers
within a "reasonable amount of time", she then sought information from
co-workers and the union steward. Appellant also presents arguments
going to the merits of her complaint.
Under the Commissions regulations, a complainant must contact an
EEO counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to
be discriminatory. 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1). In the instant case,
appellant was aware that another employee was working a dual appointment,
and although warned that there were time limits for contacting an EEO
counselor, chose to investigate the matter through other means. Appellant
has failed to submit justification for extending the time limits for
contacting the EEO counselor.
After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds appellant's request
does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request. The decision
of the Commission in Appeal No. 01974062 remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from the
decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Nov. 20, 1998
____________ ___________________________
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat