05a30447
06-11-2003
Cecelia Aguilera, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Cecelia Aguilera v. United States Postal Service
05A30447
June 11, 2003
.
Cecelia Aguilera,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30447
Appeal No. 01A13048
Agency No. 4E-852-0109-98
Hearing No. 350-A0-8024X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Cecelia Aguilera (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Cecelia Aguilera v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A13048 (January 9, 2003). 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 a formal complaint in which she alleged discrimination
on the bases of national origin (Hispanic) and sex (female) (1) when
several of her leave requests were denied between November 1, 1997,
and December 4, 1997; and (2) when her bid position was abolished on
February 28, 1998. The agency dismissed the allegations concerning the
leave requests as being brought to the attention of an EEO counselor
in an untimely manner; the allegation concerning the bid position was
accepted for investigation.
The matter subsequently went before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) at
which point complainant sought to amend her complaint by alleging that she
was subjected to several additional adverse employment actions between
November and December 1999. The AJ affirmed the agency's dismissal,
and ruled that the amended allegations were not sufficiently precise to
allow him to determine whether they were like or related to the accepted
allegation. Therefore, the amended allegations were dismissed as well.
Regarding the accepted allegation, the AJ found, without a hearing, that
complainant had not been discriminated against as alleged. The agency
adopted in full the AJ's findings. Complainant appealed. On appeal, this
Commission summarily affirmed the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision.
Complainant now requests that we reconsider the decision reached by us
on appeal.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant argues that her claim
was incorrectly framed. Specifically, she argues that if the agency
and AJ had accepted her entire claim, she would have been accorded
the opportunity to demonstrate that each allegation raised by her was
like or related to the accepted allegation. This Commission disagrees.
The denial of complainant's leave requests were not like or related to
the abolishment of her bid position. Further, and as the AJ pointed out,
the rest of complainant's allegations were not sufficiently precise to
allow a decision-maker to determine whether they were like or related
to the abolishment of the bid position.
Complainant further argues that she was denied a full, fair, and
unbiased investigation. In so doing, complainant contends that her
claim was never counseled because the person to whom she spoke in the EEO
office, and thought was an EEO counselor, was merely a member of the EEO
support staff. Complainant also contends that the AJ erroneously stated
that she and the agency engaged in a pre-hearing conference, and did not
address her motion to amend until he rendered his decision regarding the
rest of her issues. Despite these contentions, a review of the record
indicates that during the counseling, investigation, and hearing phases
of the EEO process, complainant was treated fairly and without bias,
and was not deprived of any of the EEO rights to which she is entitled.
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. The decision in EEOC
Appeal No. 01A13048 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
June 11, 2003
__________________
Date