05a20902
09-16-2002
Maria L. Burnett-Gorrell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Maria L. Burnett-Gorrell v. United States Postal Service
05A20902
09-16-02
.
Maria L. Burnett-Gorrell,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20902
Appeal No. 01A03809
Agency No. 4J-606-0114-97
Hearing No. 210-99-6467X
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On June 21, 2002, Maria L. Burnett-Gorrell (complainant) timely initiated
a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider
the decision in Maria L. Burnett-Gorrell v. John E. Potter, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03809
(May 28, 2002). 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).
Complainant claimed discrimination based on sex and reprisal when her
request for sick leave was denied in January 1997; she lost bumping rights
under the collective bargaining agreement in February 1997; she was given
write-ups and verbally harassed in February 1997; and she was issued a
notice of proposed removal on February 18, 1997. The agency explained
that complainant was treated and disciplined pursuant to the CBA and
that her removal was proposed, because she failed to follow directions
which resulted in curtailment of the mail, and she was discourteous and
disrespectful to her supervisor.<1> The AJ issued a decision without a
hearing, finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant
as alleged. The previous decision affirmed the AJ's determination.
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).
In her request, complainant repeats her argument on appeal that the agency
used prior discipline that had been rescinded to justify her removal.
In fact, the discipline cited by complainant was not identified by
the agency in its letter proposing her removal but referred to other
discipline that was not rescinded or otherwise changed. Complainant has
not provided evidence that shows otherwise.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. 01A03809 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the 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
__________________
Date
1In January 1998, an arbitration award modified her removal to a long-term
suspension and she was reinstated with a new 9-month probationary period.