0520140501
02-04-2015
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140501
Appeal No. 0120141534
Agency No. 1F-9570056-13
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141534 (July 10, 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 Complainant's request is denied.
In the appellate decision, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the bases of race (Indian), sex (male), religion (Hindu), disability, age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On February 19, 2010, Complainant was told there was no work within his medical restrictions; 2. Complainant's pay and health insurance benefits were terminated from 2010 to 2011; 3. Complainant's August 13, 2012 Form 50, processed on September 4, 2012, did not have his correct enter on duty and last day on duty dates; and 4. Complainant's requests for reinstatement have been denied since August 9, 2012.
On January 31, 2014, the Agency issued a decision dismissing the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Agency found that Complainant did not contact the counselor until August 15, 2013, which was well beyond the statutory requirement of 45 days. In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's decision finding that the alleged discriminatory events occurred between February 19, 2010, and August 13, 2012 but Complainant did not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until August 15, 2013, which was well beyond the 45-day limitation period.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTENTIONS
Complainant asserts among other things in his request for reconsideration that he timely filed his complaint on September 14, 2012, but the EEO Specialist mixed up his new complaint with an old resolved complaint. Complainant maintains that the EEO Specialist instead of sending him his formal complaint forms asked Complainant to call him. Complainant also reiterates that his last day of work was written incorrectly on his paperwork. Complainant explains that he has several medical conditions that prevent him from getting things done and it is sometimes impossible for him to get things done in a timely manner.
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 failed to demonstrate that he contacted an EEO Counselor in a timely manner. Complainant has presented no evidence that supports his claims that his complaint was attached to another document. We also find Complainant has presented no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed for untimely EEO Counselor contact pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2). The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120141534 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
__2/4/15________________
Date
2
0520140501
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
3
0520140501