0520130020
03-20-2013
Darnell A. Hixon, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Darnell A. Hixon,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130020
Appeal No. 0120112693
Agency No. 4J-481-0004-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Darnell A. Hixon v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112693 (September 12, 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).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the Agency's final decision that it did not breach a settlement agreement. In our decision, we noted that the December 29, 2010, settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
Management agrees that Counselee will continue his role as an ODD and support the scanning initiative via field operations and Counselee will also contribute to the AMS function.
Complainant alleged breach of the settlement agreement when he was forced to monitor the "CPMS website" and when he had been told not to assist with scanning programs. Complainant also alleged that he was given a zero rating that was changed to a seven. In our previous decision, we noted that Complainant's ratings are not matters covered by the settlement agreement. We further noted that part of Complainant's CMPS assignment was a scanning function, and that Complainant engaged in additional scanning on Saturdays. We also noted that Complainant's access to scanning was restored after he alerted management. We therefore found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency had breached the terms of the settlement agreement.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant essentially reiterates contentions and arguments addressed in our previous decision. 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. Pan 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Pep'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. Complainant has not done so here.
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. 0120112693 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
March 20, 2013
Date
2
0520130020
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130020