0520140049
04-03-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140049
Appeal No. 0120111215
Agency No. 4C-440-0017-10
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested that the Commission reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120111215 (September 6, 2013). 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(c). For the following reasons, Complainant's request is DENIED.
This matter initially came before the Commission when Complainant appealed the Agency's final decision finding that Complainant was not denied a reasonable amount of official time to work on her EEO complaint. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency's decision.
In its appellate ruling, the Commission found that Complainant (1) was granted a reasonable amount of official time even though for a date different than the date she had requested; (2) did not alert her supervisor that the date for which she was approved to use official time was beyond the regulatory time limit for filing an EEO complaint; (3) did not miss any EEO regulatory deadlines as a result of the date for which she was approved to use official time; and (4) did indeed use the granted amount of official time on the date for which it was approved. The Commission further found that the Agency presented a plausible explanation why Complainant was not allowed to use official time on the specific date she had requested.1
In her request for reconsideration Complainant argues, in relevant part, that the Agency failed to allow her to meet with her EEO representative in a timely manner.2 That argument, however, was submitted to, and considered by, the Commission on appeal.
Complainant is reminded that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has demonstrated neither on reconsideration.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that Complainant's request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(c). For that reason, her request is hereby DENIED. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120111215 is final. As such, Complainant is not entitled to any of the remedies requested on reconsideration. There is no further right of administrative appeal to the Commission on this matter.
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
April 3, 2014
Date
1 In so doing, the Commission noted that Complainant requested official time in a manner other than the way she had been instructed to do so, and that there was no evidence that the manner in which she had been instructed to request official time was different than that required of other employees.
2 Complainant further argues that the Agency failed to investigate her EEO complaint within the 180-day time period required by our regulations. That argument, however, is not material to our analysis of her request for reconsideration, and is therefore not addressed herein.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520140049
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140049