Laurie J. Whalen, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (New York Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 25, 2010
0120093715 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2010)

0120093715

02-25-2010

Laurie J. Whalen, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (New York Metro Area), Agency.


Laurie J. Whalen,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(New York Metro Area),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120093715

Agency No. 1A126002009

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the agency's decision dated July

29, 2009, holding in abeyance her complaint of unlawful employment

discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

Complainant is a mail processing clerk with the Mid Hudson Processing and

Distribution Center in Newburgh, New York. In her complaint, complainant

alleged that she was discriminated against based on disability (deafness)

and reprisal for prior EEO activity when management delayed and did not

install a video relay service/video phone, and it became clear on March 6,

2009, that it was not following up on her request to do so.1

In its final decision, the agency determined that the complaint is

identical to the claim in Tighe, et al v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Hearing No. 320-2005-00065X, which is currently pending before

an EEOC Administrative Judge.2 It stated that complainant's claims

will be held in abeyance pending certification. The instant appeal

from complainant followed. On appeal, complainant makes no comment.

In opposition to the appeal, the agency argues that its final decision

should be affirmed.

We find that the agency failed to establish that the time period for which

complainant is complaining (2009) is within the scope of Tighe, Hearing

No. 320-2005-00065X. We conclude that complainant's claims encompass a

much later period of time - years later. This determination is consistent

with our recent rulings in Soto v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 0120093086 (November 10, 2009) and Ortiz v. United States

Postal Service, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120090061 & 0120092867 (November 6,

2009). Both appellate decisions reversed final agency decisions which

held complaints on relatively recent matters in abeyance due to the

Tighe case.

The final agency decision is reversed.

ORDER

The agency is ordered to process the remanded claim, identified in

the body of this decision, in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108.

The agency shall acknowledge to the complainant that it has received the

remanded claim within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final. The agency shall issue to complainant a copy of the

investigative file and also shall notify complainant of the appropriate

rights within one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this

decision becomes final, unless the matter is otherwise resolved prior

to that time. If the complainant requests a final decision without

a hearing, the agency shall issue a final decision within sixty (60)

days of receipt of complainant's request.

A copy of the agency's letter of acknowledgment to complainant and a

copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of

rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K1208)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar

days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall

be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington,

DC 20013. The agency's report must contain supporting documentation,

and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to the complainant.

If the agency does not comply with the Commission's order, the complainant

may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. �

1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right to file a civil action

to enforce compliance with the Commission's order prior to or following

an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407,

1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the complainant

has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in

accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File A Civil

Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject

to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).

If the complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of

the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request

to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail

within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0408)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United

States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date

that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a

civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date

you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal with the

Commission. 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. Filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

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

February 25, 2010

__________________

Date

1 According to the counselor's report, a manager stated complainant

requested installation of a video phone around 2007.

2 In Soto v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120093086

(November 10, 2009), we noted that Tighe (agency complaint number

1E-801-0070-04) arose out of a Denver, Colorado postal facility and

alleged "lack of interpreters present at meetings." In Soto, we noted

that the EEO complaint for Tighe referred to 2002 and 2004 incidents,

but that the Commission, in Tighe v. United States Postal Service, EEOC

Appeal No. 01A31527 (September 11, 2003), found that complainant's claim

encompassed a denial of interpretive services back to September 1993.

??

??

??

??

2

0120093715

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120093715