0520140172
06-27-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140172
Appeal No. 0120122724
Agency No. 4J-604-0048-12
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120122724 (December 11, 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).
During the relevant time period, Complainant worked as a Sales/Service/Distribution Associate at the Post Office in Fairbury, Illinois. On March 27, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of disability when, on July 20, 2011, she was terminated from her employment with the Agency. The Agency dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was initiated by untimely EEO Counselor contact, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2).
In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal. Specifically, the Commission determined that, although Complainant asserted that she was unaware of the applicable time limit, the Agency provided an affidavit statement that attested that there was a poster in the facility where Complainant worked that provided the pertinent EEO information. Additionally, our previous decision determined that, although Complainant maintained that health issues inferred with her ability to timely seek counseling, Complainant's acknowledgment that she contacted her Congressman, filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and sought attorneys reflected that she was not so incapacitated that she could not file in a timely manner.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that employees should not be required to memorize every poster or document in their office. Complainant further maintains that she has not worked at the Fairbury Post Office since October 8, 2008, and that the Postmaster took away her keys to that facility long before July 2011. Complainant also contends that her disability interfered with her ability to initiate timely EEO Counselor contact because she did not have the strength, energy, or ability to do so.
Upon review, we note that, in an affidavit statement, a Clerk attested that a poster containing the applicable time limits has been posted in the Fairbury facility since 1985. Complainant affirms that she worked at the facility until at least October 2008. Therefore, the statement reflects that Complainant worked at the facility while the EEO poster was displayed. Although Complainant maintains that employees should not be required to memorize EEO posters in their office, it is well-established by Commission precedent that EEO posters on display in the workplace constitute constructive notice of EEO time limits. Drake v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120131871 (Aug. 5, 2013); Tutwittler v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120121325 (Apr. 18, 2013); Pride v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05930134 (August 19, 1993). Finally, with regard to Complainant's claim that her disability interfered with her ability to initiate timely EEO Counselor contact, there is no evidence that our previous decision erred in finding that Complainant failed to prove that she was so incapacitated that she could not comply with the applicable time limit.
We note 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 not done so here.
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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120122724 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
June 27, 2014
Date
2
0520140172
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140172