Beth A. Roman-Cavellero, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 9, 2002
05A20303 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 9, 2002)

05A20303

09-09-2002

Beth A. Roman-Cavellero, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area) Agency.


Beth A. Roman-Cavellero v. United States Postal Service

05A20303

September 9, 2002

.

Beth A. Roman-Cavellero,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Southeast Area)

Agency.

Request No. 05A20303

Appeal No. 01993037

Agency No. 4H-3301533-95

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Beth A. Roman-Cavellero (complainant) timely initiated a request to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider

the decision in Beth A. Roman-Cavellero v. United States Postal Service,

EEOC Appeal No. 01993037 (May 26, 2000).

Complainant alleged discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,

on the bases of race (Hebrew), color (white), sex (female), and religion

(Jewish), when on May 13, 1995, she was issued a Letter of Decision

removing her from the agency.

The record evidence established that complainant was removed from the

agency because of improper conduct. Specifically, the evidence showed

that a discrepancy existed as to whether complainant's doctor had released

her to return to full or part-duty. Information on Form CA-17, provided

by complainant, revealed that she could work part-time, six hours per day.

However, agency officials contacted complainant's doctor's office which

revealed that the doctor never made such recommendation. In addition,

other evidence indicated that the doctor's note appeared to be written

by complainant. Although complainant's first-line manager recommended

no discipline, complainant's higher chain of command bypassed that

recommendation for more severe discipline. While complainant asserted that

she did not falsify any documents, the evidence supported management's

belief that she had. Lastly, complainant provided insufficient evidence

of pretext or discriminatory animus.

In our previous decision, we affirmed the Final Agency's Decision finding

no discrimination. In complainant's request for reconsideration, she

argues that since our previous decision failed to specify what evidence

we considered in affirming the Final Agency Decision, our decision

was erroneous.

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).

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. Specifically, we find

that complainant has failed to show that there is any basis to support a

finding of discrimination based upon the evidence of record. The decision

in EEOC Appeal No. 01993037 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

September 9, 2002

__________________

Date