05a60527
04-12-2006
Margaret M. Poirier, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Margaret M. Poirier v. United States Postal Service
05A60527
04-12-06
.
Margaret M. Poirier,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A60527
Appeal No. 01A55984
Agency No. 4B-040-0023-05
DENIAL
Margaret M. Poirier (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of
the decision in Margaret M. Poirier v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A55984 (February 24, 2006). 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. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In the underlying complaint, complainant alleged that the agency violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., when (1) she was subjected to discriminatory
harassment based on her sex by her Officer-in-Charge when: (a) on June 9,
2005, he yelled at, cornered her and pointed his finger in her face, and
(b) on June 10, 2005, he insisted on speaking with her and following her
around; and (2) on July 20, 2005, she was treated unjustly and unfairly
when her request for Redress Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation
was verbally denied. The agency issued a final decision on August 16,
2005, dismissing complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim.
Complainant appealed the agency's decision to the Commission on September
14, 2005. The Commission, in Poirier v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A55984 (February 24, 2006), affirmed the agency's
dismissal of complainant's claim. With regard to claims1(a) and 1(b),
the Commission determined that complainant failed to state a claim of
harassment because she failed to show that she suffered harm or loss with
respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Specifically,
the Commission determined that complainant failed to establish that the
two incidents she alleged to be harassing were sufficiently severe or
pervasive to render her work environment hostile. With regard to claim
2, the Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal for failure to state
a claim since the agency's decision to not engage in alternative dispute
resolution cannot be the made the subject of an EEO complaint according to
our Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614 (EEO MD-110), 3-3. (November 9, 1999). Complainant now requests
that we reconsider our decision in the appellate decision.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant argues that the appellate
decision contains an erroneous interpretation of material facts and will
have a substantial impact on the practices of the agency. In support
of her position, complainant provides additional statements concerning
additional incidents of harassment, as well as disparate treatment of
women compared to male colleagues. However, we remind complainant
that a �request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the
Commission.� EEO MD-110, 9-17 (November 9, 1999). We find, however,
that complainant's request fails to meet the criteria for the Commission
to grant her request. Complainant fails to identify any clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law in the underlying decision, or any
policies, practices, or operations of the agency that was substantially
impacted by the underlying decision. Complainant's underlying complaint
involved two incidents of alleged harassment. Complainant has failed to
show how these additional facts demonstrate that the appellate decision
contained erroneous interpretation of material facts or will have a
substantial impact on the practices of the agency.
Therefore, after reconsidering 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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to
deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A55984 remains the
Commission's final 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 (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
______04-12-06____________
Date