0520140143
06-03-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140143
Appeal No. 0120132805
Hearing No. 451-2013-00062X
Agency No. 1G784000912
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132805 (December 18, 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 for reconsideration is denied.
BACKGROUND
Complainant alleged that he was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (Caucasian), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
1. on April 26, 2012, his supervisor refused to take him to the doctor after he had an on-the-job injury;
2. on or about May 14, 2012, his supervisor denied his request for leave, did not allow him to work a different schedule and he was required to work overtime;
3. on or about May 15, 2012, his clock rings were changed;
4. in June 2012, the employees in his work location were told they would not receive an award due to his injury on duty; and
5. on September 26, 2012, he received a letter with instructions, that restricted his access to the workplace.
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Thereafter, the Agency filed a Motion for a Decision Without a Hearing. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency. Specifically, the AJ dismissed claim 1 for failure to state a claim after finding that Complainant was not aggrieved. With regard to the remaining claims, the AJ found, among other things, that the Agency articulated, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant failed to show were pretext for discrimination.
The previous decision affirmed the dismissal with regard to claim 1, and found that the AJ correctly determined that Complainant had not alleged a personal loss or harm regarding a term, condition, or privilege of his employment. With regard to the remaining claims, claims 2 -5, the Commission found that, as an initial matter, Complainant, had not provided any persuasive arguments regarding the propriety of the AJ's finding of no discrimination. The previous decision also noted that the Agency had conducted a thorough investigation. The Commission found that the AJ's decision to grant summary judgment, and the findings of fact, were supported by the record. Complainant did not present evidence that any of the Agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus toward his race, age or prior protected activity.
REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION CONTENTIONS
In Complainant's request for reconsideration, he maintains, among other things, that the AJ erred when he found that Complainant had not been denied medical care. Complainant maintains that his supervisor refused to take him for medical care until the Plant Manager ordered the supervisor to take Complainant. Further, Complainant maintains that when they "doctored" his clock rings, he was not paid for 35 minutes at time and a half. Complainant asserts that he recalls from a prior complaint that where loss of pay is involved, failure to state a claim cannot be used. He contends that based on case precedent he should be compensated for the damages caused to his body by the stress caused by the Agency. Further, Complainant maintains that he notified the Inspector General that a coworker overheard some of the details of his case as the Postal Manager's were encouraging a supervisor to change his statement regarding the case. Complainant argues that this along with missing fax records suggests that an "obstruction of justice" is occurring.
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. We find that Complainant has failed to show that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Although Complainant reargues his denial of medical care claim, we find that this claim was fully addressed in the appellate decision and therefore will not be addressed in this decision. Further, we find that other than Complainant's conclusory statements regarding an alleged obstruction of justice, which include his not being paid for 35 minutes of work, a coworker overheard supervisors discussing his case, and fax records have gone missing, he has provided no evidence to support these claims. Finally, we note that Complainant has not been awarded damages for the stress that he claims to have suffered because he has failed to prove that he was subjected to discrimination or that the incidents complained of were severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment. As Complainant has not been successful in proving his case he is not entitled to an award for damages. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132805 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
_6/3/14_________________
Date
2
0520140143
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140143