0520120437
12-06-2012
Cynthia M. Mattson, Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.
Cynthia M. Mattson,
Complainant,
v.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120437
Appeal No. 0120111925
Agency No. HSTSA-18160-2010
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Cynthia M. Mattson v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111925 (February 22, 2012). 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(b).
On August 23, 2010, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact, and on November 9, 2010, filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to disability discrimination and reprisal when on July 6, 2010, management escorted Complainant off work premises, "staging the appearance of termination." Complainant further alleged that she was separated from duty for running out of "light-duty time," but she remained a non-paid employee with the Agency.
However, the Agency's December 30, 2010, final decision and our previous decision characterized Complainant's complaint as alleging that the Agency subjected Complainant to disability discrimination and reprisal when it terminated her from her position on July 6, 2010. The Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint on the basis that it was initiated by untimely EEO Counselor contact, which the Commission affirmed in our previous decision.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant mainly recounts the merits of her complaint and the impact of the alleged discrimination on her life. Additionally, Complainant maintains that the Agency placed her on medical leave on July 6, 2010, but did not terminate her at that time. Complainant maintains that the Agency did not terminate her from the Agency until February 18, 2011.
We note that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
In this case, we note that the Agency's final decision and our previous decision mischaracterized Complainant's complaint as alleging that the Agency terminated her on July 6, 2010. However, the record reveals that Complainant's complaint alleged that, on July 6, 2010, the Agency escorted Complainant out of the office and placed her on sick leave because of its determination that she could not remain on light duty beyond 180 days. Nevertheless, the previous decision correctly found that Complainant did not contact an EEO Counselor about the events of July 6, 2010, until August 23, 2010, which was beyond the 45-day time limit. Complainant now contends that her removal from the premises in July 2010 should be merged with her February 2011 termination for timeliness purposes, but we determine that these matters are distinct claims. Consequently, we conclude that our previous decision properly affirmed the dismissal of Complainant's complaint for the reasons set forth in this decision.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120111925 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
December 6, 2012
Date
2
0520120437
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120437