0520130194
05-16-2013
Nadine Baxter-Atkins, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Nadine Baxter-Atkins,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130194
Appeal No. 0120111949
Hearing No. 510-2010-00182X
Agency No. 4H-330-0224-09
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Nadine Baxter-Atkins v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111949 (November 14, 2012). 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
Complainant maintains that the previous decision erred in finding that her qualifications were not observably superior to those of the employee who was selected for the position at issue in this case. Although the previous decision noted that the selectee, already an EAS-21, was laterally assigned to the EAS-21 position based on her qualifications and experiences, Complainant argues that she was better qualified for the position
After reviewing 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. 0120111949 remains the Commission's decision.1 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 (P0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
__5/16/13________________
Date
1 We remind Complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17. A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, we find no evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration. Here, we find no example of a clear error on the part of the previous decision. Complainant may disagree with the determination that her qualifications were not observably superior to the selectee's but she has not shown that the previous decision erred or that discrimination played a role here.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520130194
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013