Linda O. Strange, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 7, 2001
05a10794 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 7, 2001)

05a10794

11-07-2001

Linda O. Strange, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Linda O. Strange v. United States Postal Service

05A10794

11-07-01

.

Linda O. Strange,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 05A10794

Appeal No. 01A12193

Agency No. 4D-280-0069-99

Hearing No. 140-99-8277X

DECISION

On June 14, 2001, Linda O. Strange (complainant) timely initiated a

request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)

to reconsider the decision in Linda O. Strange v. William J. Henderson,

Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A12193

(May 15, 2001). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may,

in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision where the party

demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved a clearly

erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision

will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of

the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). For the reasons set forth below,

the complainant's request is denied.

Complainant filed a formal complaint on April 9, 1999, alleging

discrimination based on reprisal for prior EEO activity pursuant to Title

VII when her reporting time was changed from 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

The agency explained that it changed complainant's starting time to have

additional personnel available later in the day when the mail volume

was heavier. An EEOC Administrative Judge issued a decision without a

hearing finding no discrimination.

In her request, complainant asserted that the work level was insufficient

to justify a change in her starting time and that the change violated her

seniority; however, she presented no evidence in support. In order to

merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the requesting

party must submit written argument that tends to establish that at least

one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met. The Commission's

scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not

merely a form of a second appeal. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS,

EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990).

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the

complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal

No. 01A12193 (May 15, 2001) remains the Commission's final decision.

There is no further right of administrative appeal from a decision of

the Commission on a request for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)

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 (Z1199)

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

___11-07-01_______________

Date