01A02497_r
08-03-2000
Denise C. Hampton-Gray, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Denise C. Hampton-Gray v. United States Postal Service
01A02497
August 3, 2000
.
Denise C. Hampton-Gray,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02497
Agency No. 4F-926-0005-00
DECISION
Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was
properly dismissed pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999)(to
be codified and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �
1614.107(a)(1)).<1>
Complainant framed her complaint in terms of harassment, for prohibited
reasons, when agency officials allegedly provided false information
to her school, to obtain her records in connection with a purported
investigation of a Workers' Compensation case from 1990. The Commission
finds that the gravamen of complainant's complaint is the agency's
allegedly false investigative report issued by the agency's Postal
Inspection Service, dated August 2, 1999,<2> which apparently was sent
to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
(OWCP), with a copy provided to complainant on September 29, 1999.
The report is identified as related to an �Investigation into the OWCP
Claim of [complainant] . . . Case No. 13-0932071.� Complainant objected
to the report in a November 2, 1999 letter to OWCP.
The Commission finds that the complaint fails to state a claim under
29 C.F.R. Part 1614. It is well settled that collateral attacks on
an agency's controversion of a Workers' Compensation claim are not
cognizable in the EEO process. See Conley v. Department of the Navy,
EEOC Request No. 05970402 (February 11, 1999). The fact that complainant
has requested compensatory damages in the present case does not, without
more, make her claim cognizable. See Girard v. Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Request No. 05940379 (September 9, 1994).
Accordingly, the agency's final decision dismissing complainant's
complaint is AFFIRMED.<3>
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 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
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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
August 3, 2000
__________________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The Commission notes that a complete copy of the report at issue was not
transmitted by the agency to the Commission. The Commission reminds the
agency of its burden to provide a sufficient record on appeal. See Hines
v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01923566 (May 13, 1993), at n.9;
and see Marshall v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05910685
(September 6, 1991).
3Complainant raised certain claims for the first time on appeal.
Complainant is advised that if she wishes to pursue these additional
reprisal and disability discrimination claims, she is advised to contact
an EEO Counselor thereon.