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

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 26, 2001
05990431 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 26, 2001)

05990431

07-26-2001

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


Patricia Ford v. United States Postal Service

05990431

July 26, 2001

.

Patricia Ford,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(New York Metro Area),

Agency.

Request No. 05990431

Appeal No. 01971689

Agency No. 4A-105-1047-94

Hearing No. 160-95-8434X

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Patricia

Ford v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01971689

(January 29, 1999). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,

in its discretion, 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 alleged she was discriminated against by the Postmaster

at the agency's facility in Mount Kisco, New York, on the bases of

sex (female), age (forty-three) and reprisal (prior EEO activity).

The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) held a hearing and issued a decision

finding that complainant failed to meet her burden in establishing

that the Postmaster's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus.

The agency's final agency decision (FAD) adopted the findings of the AJ.

The Commission affirmed the FAD, concurring in the finding that while

the Postmaster treated complainant less favorably than other employees

in several respects, the evidence failed to establish that this treatment

was motivated by discrimination on the basis of sex, age or reprisal.

In her request for reconsideration, complainant contends that it was more

likely than not that the Postmaster's treatment of her was motivated by

her prior EEO activity. In support of her request for reconsideration,

complainant has submitted a letter and a sworn statement from a coworker

stating that he observed the hostile manner in which complainant was

treated by the Postmaster and that no other Union Stewards were treated

with hostility by the Postmaster.

The Commission notes that the AJ found that the testimony adduced

at the hearing strongly suggested that while the Postmaster treated

complainant less favorably after she became the Union Shop Steward, this

was the result of her overall challenge to the Postmaster's authority

rather than unlawful discrimination based on age, sex or reprisal.

The Commission finds that there is nothing in the coworker's statements

which contradicts the AJ's finding that while the Postmaster treated

complainant less favorably than other employees in several respects,

there was insufficient evidence to establish that this treatment was

motivated by discrimination or retaliation.

Thus, 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. 01971689 remains the Commission's final decision.

There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of

the Commission on this 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

July 26, 2001

__________________

Date