0520140456
09-25-2015
Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140456
Appeal No. 0120131053
Hearing No. 570-2012-00073X
Agency No. 1K-206-0002-11
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120131053 (June 3, 2014). 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(c). For the following reasons, the Complainant's request for reconsideration is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
In the appellate decision, Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases of sex (female), color (light brown), disability (bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome; trigger thumbs; tender wrists), and age (62) when: (1) On August 22, 2010, she was injured on the job, and management did not give her an opportunity to show how the accident happened, and did not provide her with a copy of her CA-1; and (2) On September 6, 2010, she was issued a Letter of Warning for Unsatisfactory Performance/Failure to Follow Safety Rules and Regulations, regarding the August 22, 2010 incident. The Agency initially dismissed Complainant's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Commission however, reversed the Agency's decision and remanded the complaint for further processing. See EEOC Appeal No. 0120111777 (June 17, 2011).
Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination. Specifically, the AJ stated that Complainant was not an aggrieved employee. The AJ noted that Complainant had not shown any significant harm from the delay in receiving a copy of her CA-1 form. In addition, the AJ indicated that Complainant did not show that she suffered a present harm from having been given a Letter of Warning, since it was canceled and reduced to an official discussion. The AJ also concluded that Complainant failed to present any evidence to show that any of the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons were pretext. Accordingly, the AJ granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
Complainant filed an appeal. In the previous decision, the Commission upheld the finding of no reprisal and no discrimination. The Commission found that while Complainant did not get to show her supervisor how the accident occurred, she did have the opportunity to explain the accident to the supervisor. From her conversation with Complainant, the supervisor was able to complete PS-Form 1769, an Accident Report. With regard to the claim that the Agency did not provide her a copy of her CA-1 form, the record revealed that Complainant was provided a copy of the CA-1 form by the union 2 - 3 weeks later. Further, the Commission noted the Agency's explanation that Complainant was issued discipline because management determined her injury could have been avoided and that the injury that occurred was an "at-fault" accident. It was determined that Complainant offered no evidence to show that the Agency's reasons were unworthy of belief or otherwise to demonstrate that the Agency's reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTENTIONS
In Complainant's request for reconsideration she provides, among other things, several statements from other employees which reveal the problems that they have experienced with the turnstile and how dangerous that it has been.
The Agency did not provide a brief.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. We find that Complainant has not provided any persuasive evidence which suggests that the previous decision erred in finding that the Agency's articulated nondiscriminatory reasons were not pretext for reprisal or discrimination. We find that other than Complainant's conclusory statements she has provided no evidence which suggests that discriminatory animus was involved in this complaint. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120131053 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__9/25/15________________
Date
2
0520140456