0520130350
09-11-2013
Cassandra E. Brown, Complainant, v. Chuck Hagel, Secretary, Department of Defense (Army & Air Force Exchange Service), Agency.
Cassandra E. Brown,
Complainant,
v.
Chuck Hagel,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Army & Air Force Exchange Service),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130350
Appeal No. 0120123568
Agency No. AAFES-11-107
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Cassandra E. Brown v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123568 (February 28, 2013). 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 underlying case, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability (diabetes) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) from November 2010 to July 2011, it did not permit her to take meal breaks consistently at three-hour increments; and (2) effective July 16, 2011, it terminated her employment.
The appellate decision affirmed the Agency's final decision finding no discrimination. Regarding claim 1, the appellate decision found that, under the circumstances presented in this case, the Agency did not deny Complainant a reasonable accommodation. In so finding, the appellate decision determined that the Agency provided Complainant with breaks every three hours, but as time went on those breaks were sometimes delayed by 15 to 20 minutes when the store was busy. In addition, the appellate decision determined that Complainant, through her Union representative, notified the Agency in June 2011 that it was not adequately accommodating her disability because of those delays and again provided copies of her medical documentation. Further, the appellate decision determined that the Agency engaged in the interactive process by reviewing Complainant's concerns and her supporting medical documentation. Finally, the appellate decision determined that this review led the Agency to discover that the medical documentation was falsified, which resulted in Complainant's termination. Regarding claim 2, the appellate decision found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination; namely, the falsification of her medical documentation. Moreover, the appellate decision found that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's reason was a pretext for discrimination.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the Agency never questioned her medical documentation until she realized that it was not adequately accommodating her disability and she went to the Union for help. In addition, Complainant argued that she had no reason to submit false medical documentation.
Upon review, we find that Complainant's request for reconsideration does not demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. The record contains a June 7, 2011 memorandum from Complainant's Union representative to the Human Resources Manager concerning Complainant's request for reasonable accommodation along with supporting medical documentation. Report of Investigation (ROI), at 130. In addition, the record contains testimony from the Human Resources Manager that she contacted Complainant's medical provider on June 9, 2011 to verify the validity of the November 2-3, 2010 documentation after noticing similarities between the documents. Id. at 244. Moreover, the record contains a June 10, 2011 facsimile from Complainant's medical provider stating that the November 2-3, 2010 documentation was "not valid" because the doctor whose name appeared on the documentation had been away from the clinic for a year. Id. at 136-37. Based on the above, we find that Complainant failed to show that the appellate decision clearly erred in finding no 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. 0120123568 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
__9/11/13________________
Date
2
0520130350
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130350