05A30135
03-04-2003
Belinda M. Travis, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Belinda M. Travis v. United States Postal Service
05A30135
03-04-03
.
Belinda M. Travis,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30135
Appeal No. 01A04120
Agency No. 4F-950-0064-99
Hearing No. 370-99-2698X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Belinda M. Travis (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Belinda M. Travis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A04120 (September 18, 2002). 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 filed an EEO complaint claiming that she had been
discriminated against on the bases of race (African-American), color
(Black), national origin (African-American), sex (female), religion
(Pentecostal), age (45), disability (unspecified) and reprisal
for prior EEO activity when on December 30, 1998, she was issued a
letter of termination. The complaint was accepted for investigation.
After complainant was issued the report of investigation, she requested a
hearing before an EEOC administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ determined that
the case was appropriate for a decision without a hearing, and issued a
decision finding that the complainant had not been discriminated against.
In his summary judgment decision, issued on February 23, 2000, the AJ
found that there were no material facts in genuine dispute and issued
a decision on the record. The AJ found that complainant had failed to
establish prima facie cases of discrimination for any of her claimed
bases. Assuming arguendo, that complainant had established her prima
facie cases, the agency offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for
its action. The AJ found that complainant had been terminated pursuant
to the results of an arbitration agreement, which directed that she
submit to a fitness for duty examination following a prolonged absence
from the workplace. When she was not found to be cleared for work with
no restrictions, the agency terminated her. Complainant failed to show
that this reason was pretext for discrimination. The agency issued a
final order which implemented the AJ's decision. The previous decision
affirmed the agency's implementation of the AJ's decision.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant submitted an argument
in which she attempted to show that the AJ's decision was incorrectly
decided. She had not advanced any of those arguments in her initial
appeal to the Commission. The agency objected to complainant's request
for reconsideration on the grounds that she had not met the criteria
for the granting of reconsideration.
After a review of 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. We note that the
Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow.
Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September
28, 1989). A request for reconsideration is not merely a form of a second
appeal. Regensberg v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900850
(September 7, 1990). Additionally, complainant does not show that the
Commission should reopen her case on its own motion by submitting any
evidence that there was unlawful discrimination involved in the agency's
decision to terminate her. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A04120
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
___03-04-03_______________
Date