01a52228
07-26-2005
Tracy L. Sanchez, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Tracy L. Sanchez v. United States Postal Service
01A52228
July 26, 2005
.
Tracy L. Sanchez,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52228
Agency No. 4G-730-0098-04
DECISION
Initially, it is noted that the record indicates that complainant,
a former letter carrier in the Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office, was a
survivor of the 1986 shooting incident in the Edmond Post Office,
in which several of her coworkers died. Following this incident,
complainant was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
and returned to work. Thereafter, on October 10, 1989, complainant was
attacked by a coworker which further exacerbated her pre-existing PTSD.
Complainant filed a workers' compensation (OWCP) claim over her October
10, 1989 injury which was accepted and she has been receiving OWCP
benefits since that time. The record shows that complainant's last day
in pay status was March 5, 1990.<1> The agency issued her a separation
letter effective January 12, 2002. Complainant filed an EEO complaint,
Agency No. 4G-730-0052-02, on March 27, 2002, regarding that separation.
On September 21, 2004, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision
finding no discrimination concerning the agency's decision to separate
complainant from her employment. Complainant appealed the agency's final
order implementing the AJ's decision. The Commission, in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A50341 (March 29, 2005), affirmed the agency's final order.<2>
The record indicates that complainant filed her complaint at issue,
dated October 27, 2004, alleging discrimination based on sex, disability,
and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) on August 28, 2004, the
Injury Compensation Specialist violated Federal Regulations to include
last health benefit refund because of wrong pay calculations; (2) on July
23, 2004, the EEOC denied her request to amend her previous EEO case; (3)
the Injury Compensation Specialist retaliated against her by changing her
address in the system to her old address to cause a delay in her health
benefit refund; (4) the Human Resources Specialist retaliated by refusing
assistance in personnel matters since post office massacre in Edmond in
1986; (5) since January 2004, she was harassed by an individual while
trying to find out information about disability retirement; and (6)
an identified supervisor retaliated since August 20, 1986 massacre in
Edmond, OK by harassing her in completion of forms for leave, putting an
employee on her delivery route that had been investigated for physical
threats against her, frightening her when one day he was wearing a suit
delivering her mail, and issuing her a letter of demand in 1989.
It appears that claims (1), (3), (4), and (5) concern complainant's
OWCP claims. Upon review, the Commission finds that since the alleged
matters concern the general administrative of workers' compensation
benefits, and do not relate to an employment policy or practice, they
fail to state a processable claim. See Stone v. Department of Labor,
EEOC Appeal No. 01950550 (February 6, 1996); Montage v. Department of
Labor, EEOC Appeal No. 01952118 (May 18, 1995). Thus, the Commission
finds that the agency properly dismissed those claims for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
In claim (2), complainant alleged dissatisfaction with the processing
of her previously filed complaint when the AJ, above, denied her request
to add the instant OWCP claims in her previous complaint of the alleged
separation. Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency properly
dismissed the subject matter for alleging dissatisfaction with the
processing of a previously filed complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(8).
With regard to claim (6), it appears that complainant is alleging
incidents which occurred prior to 1990. Complainant contacted an EEO
Counselor with regard to the subject matter on August 16, 2004, which was
beyond the 45-day time limit set by the regulations. Complainant has
not presented any evidence that her EEO contact was timely nor has she
presented adequate justification to warrant an extension of the applicable
time limit for contacting an EEO Counselor. Thus, the Commission finds
that the agency's dismissal of claim (6) due to untimely EEO Counselor
contact was proper, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2).
Accordingly, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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, 2005
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1The agency states that complainant has not actually performed any work
for the agency since 1986.
2The Commission also stated that the separation action was rescinded by
the agency.