0520120556
01-18-2013
Bobbi R. Williams, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Bobbi R. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120556
Appeal No. 0120101465
Agency No. 1H-391-0004-09
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Bobbi R. Williams v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120101465 (June 28, 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).
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's final decision finding that the Agency did not discriminate against Complainant on the basis of disability when it placed her off the clock and charged her Absent without Leave (AWOL). We noted that, after the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) denied Complainant's OWCP claim, Complainant's supervisor (S1) instructed her to return to her bid position. Although Complainant asserted that her physician had not returned her to full duty, she could not produce current documentation about her condition. When Complainant refused to return to her bid position and also refused S1's instruction to go to S1's office, S1 took Complainant off the clock and escorted her off the premises. Complainant failed to report to work or call in during the following week, and the Agency charged her with AWOL.
We concluded that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. In that regard, we noted that the Agency placed Complainant off the clock because she failed to follow a direct order from her supervisor and placed her on AWOL because she failed to return to work or call in. We also concluded that Complainant did not show that the articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. We noted, for example, that Complainant admitted that she did not return to work or call in because she thought that someone would call her to tell her when to return. To the extent that Complainant was claiming that S1's conduct subjected her to a hostile work environment, we found that the claim must fail because Complainant did not establish that the Agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. In response to Complainant's arguments on appeal, we noted that S1's actions might have been unpleasant, but that EEO regulations do not require that the workplace be free of offensive behavior; only discriminatory behavior.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates her argument that S1 subjected her to a hostile work environment. In addition, she asserts that S1 deleted clock rings and is no longer employed by the Agency because of complaints about her poor management skills.
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; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, 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. Complainant has not done so here.
Complainant's assertion that S1 no longer works at the Agency does not establish that the Agency discriminated against Complainant with respect to the actions at issue here. Further, as we noted in our previous decision, Complainant's objections to S1's conduct do not show that the Agency subjected her to discriminatory harassment. Complainant has not demonstrated that the previous decision clearly erred in finding that she failed to prove her claim of disability-based discrimination.
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. 0120101465 remains the Commission's decision. 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
January 18, 2013
Date
2
0520120556
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120556