Complainantv.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 9, 2015
0720130037 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 9, 2015)

0720130037

03-09-2015

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.

Appeal No. 0720130037

Hearing No. 580-2012-00678X

580-2012-00679X

Agency No. 1F-901-0105-07

4F-901-10105-08

DISMISSAL

The Agency appeals an EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) denial of its motion to divide and remand alleged mixed-case claims in the class complaint EEOC Appeal No. 0720090043 (May 9, 2012). For the following reasons, the Commission DISMISSES the Agency's appeal.

During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency's Los Angeles Processing and Distribution Center in Los Angeles, California. Complainant was a "light duty" employee who had medical restrictions due to a non-work-related injury or illness. In September 2007, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging, in relevant part, that the Agency subjected her to disability discrimination by denying her a reasonable accommodation and forcing her to use leave or to work in violation of her medical restrictions.

Complainant's disability claim and that of another complainant (C2) were subsumed into a class action that was pending a certification decision. In a May 12, 2009, decision, the AJ designated Complainant and C2 as class agents and granted class certification. The AJ defined the class as follows:

All limited and light duty employees (excluding permanent rehabilitation employees) in the Los Angeles District (or "Performance Cluster") whose work hours were limited, including being sent home and told not to return, since June 12, 2007, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The Agency appealed the matter, and the Commission reversed the Agency's rejection of the AJ's certification of the class as defined above. EEOC Appeal No. 0720090043 (May 9, 2012). Accordingly, the class complaint was remanded for a hearing before an AJ and to notify potential class members of the accepted class claim.

The Agency subsequently filed a motion asking the AJ to divide and remand what it termed "mixed case class claims" while retaining the "non-mixed case class claims." The Agency argued that the AJ should divide or subdivide the certified class into two groups: putative class members with mixed cases appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and putative class members without mixed cases. On July 31, 2013, the AJ denied the Agency's motion to divide the class.

The Agency then appealed the AJ's ruling. We docketed two appeals: the instant appeal under Complainant's name (EEOC Appeal No. 0720130037) and an appeal under the name of the other class agent, C2 (EEOC Appeal No. 0720130038).

In EEOC Appeal No. 0720130038 (Feb. 6, 2015), we stated that Commission regulations provide for direct appeals to the Commission when an AJ has issued a decision regarding class certification, the merits of a class complaint, or the relief awarded on a class complaint. We noted that the Agency appealed the AJ's decision on class certification, that the Agency had an opportunity to argue that members of the class had mixed-case complaints but did not do so, and that the Commission affirmed the AJ's certification of the class complaint. We further noted that Commission regulations do not provide for interlocutory appeals from an AJ's rulings on motions during the hearing process and that such appeals must be dismissed as premature. We found, therefore, that the AJ's denial of the Agency's motion properly did not include appeal rights to the Commission, and we dismissed the Agency's appeal.

The instant appeal involves the same matter that was addressed in EEOC Appeal No. 0720130038 (February 6, 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the Agency's appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Agency's appeal must be, and is, DISMISSED.

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

March 9, 2015

Date

2

0720130037

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0720130037