0520120084
02-08-2012
Diana W. Hayes, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Diana W. Hayes,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120084
Appeal No. 0120091032
Agency No. 1J-603-0006-08
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Diana
W. Hayes v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091032 (September
22, 2011). 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).
BACKGROUND
In the appellate decision, Complainant a Mail Processing Clerk alleged
that she was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when beginning on January 28, 2008, her requests
for a temporary change of schedule was disapproved. The Agency issued
a final decision finding that Complainant failed to show that any
similarly-situated employees were treated more favorable than her.
The Agency noted that the employees cited by Complainant who received
schedule changes had different job functions than her. The Agency further
noted that other employees were granted schedule changes based on business
needs and not personal convenience. With respect to another employee,
who was granted a schedule change 20 times, the Agency noted that none of
those requests were approved by the Manager of Distribution Operations
(MDO). The Agency also noted that this employee’s request was based
on business reasons, including serving as President of the National
Postal Mail Handlers Union. The Agency further found that the MDO did
not approve Complainant’s three requests for schedule changes because
Complainant failed to submit documentation explaining why she could not
work as scheduled. The Agency noted that the MDO also had denied other
employee’s requests who had not provided documentation.
The prior decision found that Complainant failed to establish that
the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscrimination reasons were pretext
for discrimination. The prior decision also found that although the
MDO denied Complainant’s requests shortly after she was given a
light-duty assignment, the MDO had approved Complainant’s request on
several occasions and that there was simply no evidence in the record
demonstrating that the denial for a schedule change was motivated by
retaliatory animus.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the
MDO's explanation is a pretext for retaliation in that not everyone
was required to submit documentation for a change of work schedule.
Complainant requests that the final Agency decision be overturned.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny
the request. We find that Complainant failed to show that the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law, or that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. As previously
indicated in the prior decision, while the MDO had granted a few request
for schedule changes, he denied many other requests. The Agency explained
that the requests that were granted were due to business reasons.
The record showed that at least five other mail processing clerks were
denied schedule changes from March 3, 2008, to June 26, 2008, for not
providing documentation. The prior decision also noted that even though
the MDO was named as a responsible management official in Complainant’s
April 2001 EEO complaint, she granted Complainant’s request for schedule
changes on four occasions. As such, the prior decision correctly found
that Complainant failed to show that discriminatory animus was involved
in the decision to not allow Complainant’s schedule change.
Further, we find that Complainant did not provided in her request
for reconsideration any evidence other than her beliefs, that other
employees, did not provide documentation or show that their schedule
changes were due to business reasons. Thus, like the prior decision,
we find that she still has not shown that the Agency’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination. Accordingly,
the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120091032 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
_2/8/12_________________
Date
2
0520120084
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120084