0120140931
05-06-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Headquarters),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140931
Agency No. 6E-000-0002-13
DECISION
On December 24, 2013, Complainant timely filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final Agency decision (FAD) dated November 21, 2013, dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postmaster at the Agency's Melissa Post Office in Melissa, Texas.
On November 9, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
on August 13, 2013, and again on September 5, 2013, its Capital Metro Law Office invoiced the Melissa Post Office for transcription costs for two separate hearing depositions arising from her prior EEO case (Complaint 1), rather than invoicing the office which Complaint 1 was against (National EEO Office), and did not fix the incorrect invoicing until October 17, 2013, and even after being notified by her.1
The Agency dismissed the complaint for alleging dissatisfaction with the processing of a prior complaint. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(8).
In her complaint, Complainant recounted that in Complaint 1 regarded her not being selected for a position that reports to the Agency's National Office of EEO Compliance and Appeals in Washington, DC.
On August 13, 2013, and again on September 5, 2013, the Agency's Capital Metro Law Office invoiced the Melissa Post Office for transcription costs for two separate discovery depositions taken in connection with Complaint 1. The invoice for the first transcript was $363.74, and Complainant wrote the charges for both totaled $650.
Complainant filed motions with the presiding EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) over Complaint 1 to amend it to include the incorrect invoicing, arguing the Agency was motivated by reprisal. In denying the motions, the AJ reasoned that the amendment would require additional time for discovery that would delay processing Complaint 1.
Thereafter, Complainant filed her formal complaint regarding the incorrect invoicing. The Agency dismissed this complaint for alleging dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed complaint. Thereafter, in addition to filing the instant appeal, Complainant filed another motion asking the AJ to reconsider denying her motions to amend. The AJ declined to do so, noting that Complaint 1 was being transferred to another EEOC hearings unit.
In its dismissal FAD the Agency wrote that Complainant's dissatisfaction with the processing of Complaint 1 should be addressed by the EEOC AJ conducting the hearing process thereon.
According to the counselor's report the Agency explained that incorrect invoicing was the result of administrative errors. Complainant contends that the incorrect invoicing was motivated by reprisal and contends that she was harmed by the improper invoicing because her current management, who are unconnected to Complaint 1, learned of her EEO activity, and the Melissa Post Office, for whose budget she is solely responsible, was incorrectly invoiced. She argues that she suffered emotional harm, and the incorrect invoicing would reasonably deter EEO activity.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(8) provides for the dismissal of a complaint that alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed complaint. Complainant argues that her complaint about incorrect invoicing is not about alleged dissatisfaction with the processing of Complaint 1. We disagree.
In Cross v. National Archives and Records Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121254 (Oct. 10, 2012), a complainant claimed that her Agency discriminated against her based on reprisal for prior EEO activity when Midwest Litigation, a third party court reporting company, billed her for the cost of the hearing transcript associated with a hearing before an EEOC AJ. She also contended that the transcript contained errors. The EEOC affirmed the Agency's dismissal on the grounds that the claim alleged dissatisfaction with a prior complaint, and found that the proper forum for such a claim was in the processing or appeal of the prior complaint. In Prshewlozky v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073031 (Oct. 12, 2007), a complainant alleged the agency discriminated against her based on her national origin, disability, and reprisal for prior EEO activity when, in part, she was deprived discovery in another complaint and her transcript was altered. The EEOC affirmed the Agency's dismissal on the grounds that the claim alleged dissatisfaction with the processing of a prior complaint.
While the above cases are not directly on point, we find that they support that Complainant's complaint about the Agency incorrectly invoicing hearing deposition reporting costs in connection with Complaint 1 alleges dissatisfaction with the processing of Complaint 1. Such a claim does not give rise to an amended complaint or new complaint which should be accepted for investigation or processed on the merits. Complainant could file a motion asking the AJ who is presiding over Complaint 1 to issue some type of corrective order, albeit at this point the matter of incorrect invoicing has already been adequately addressed by the Agency.
The FAD is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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
May 6, 2014
__________________
Date
1 Complainant disputes the Agency's definition of her complaint, arguing it was "collapse[d] and "[abbreviated]." After a review of the record and complaint, we expanded on it, as defined herein.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140931
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120140931