05980260
11-20-1998
Crystal Hart, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Crystal Hart v. United States Postal Service
05980260
November 20, 1998
Crystal Hart, )
Appellant, ) Request No. 05980260
) Appeal No. 01970934
v. ) Agency No. 4F945122296
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
________________________________)
DENIAL OF RECONSIDERATION
INTRODUCTION
On December 26, 1997, Crystal Hart (hereinafter referred to as appellant)
timely filed a request for reconsideration of the decision in Hart
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01970934 (December
16, 1997). 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 or regulation, or material fact,
or a misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2);
and the decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). For the reasons
set forth herein, appellant's request is denied.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether appellant's request meets any of the
statutory criteria for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was hired as a part-time flexible Rural Carrier Relief on
September 16, 1995. On January 22, 1996, appellant was separated from her
position for unsatisfactory work performance. Record evidence suggests
that appellant filed an EEO complaint on this matter and that the parties
then engaged in settlement negotiations. Appellant was represented by
counsel during this time.
Appellant apparently was dissatisfied with the manner in which the
agency's Labor Relations Specialist was handling the settlement
negotiations. On May 30, 1996, appellant contacted an EEO counselor
regarding an incident on May 24, 1996. According to the EEO counselor's
report, appellant complained that the Labor Relations Specialist did
not contact appellant's attorney but instead contacted appellant
directly to offer reinstatement to settle appellant's complaint.
Thereafter, appellant's attorney submitted a formal complaint of reprisal
discrimination alleging, inter alia, that appellant had been required
to travel to two locations for interviews; she was required to travel
to one location a second time; the Labor Relations Specialist sent her
a letter containing a number of misrepresentations; and so forth.
In its final decision (FAD), the agency dismissed appellant's complaint
for failure to state a claim. The agency found that appellant was
expressing dissatisfaction with the processing of a prior complaint.
That is, because appellant had failed to allege that she had suffered
a personal loss or harm with respect to a term, condition, or privilege
of employment, she was not aggrieved and therefore had failed to state
a claim. In this regard, the agency noted that appellant no longer
was an employee and that the matter of which she complained was not an
agency personnel action. Appellant appealed from the FAD. Upon review,
the previous decision affirmed the FAD.
In her RTR, appellant contends that the previous decision erred in
affirming the FAD.
In response, the agency contends that appellant's request failed to meet
the criteria for reconsideration and should be denied for that reason.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision
when the party requesting reconsideration submits written argument or
evidence which tends to establish that at least one of the criteria
of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c) is met. For a decision to be reconsidered,
the request must contain specific information that meets the criteria
referenced above.
Appellant complained of the manner in which the agency's Labor Relations
Specialist engaged in settlement negotiations. Appellant has not
alleged that she suffered a personal loss or harm with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment. Consequently, we agree with the
finding that appellant was not aggrieved and therefore failed to state
a claim under the regulations. Appellant may contact the individual
responsible for the quality of EEO complaints processing if she wishes
to discuss the concerns expressed in the instant complaint. See EEO
Management Directive 110, at 4-8.
Because appellant's request fails to meet the statutory criteria for
reconsideration, the Commission therefore denies the request.
CONCLUSION
After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the agency's
response, the previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission
finds that appellant's request for reconsideration fails to meet the
criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and the request hereby is DENIED.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01970934 hereby is AFFIRMED. There
is no further right of administrative appeal from a decision of the
Commission on a request for reconsideration. There is no further right
to administrative review from a decision on reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS
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