Dora Gordon, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 21, 2005
05a50604 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 21, 2005)

05a50604

03-21-2005

Dora Gordon, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Dora Gordon v. United States Postal Service

05A50604

03-21-05

.

Dora Gordon,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 05A50604

Appeal No. 01A50905

Agency No. 1F-955-0005-04

DECISION

Dora Gordon (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of the

decision in Dora Gordon v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A50905 (January 31, 2005).

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 previous decision

involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law;

or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).

In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's dismissal

of complainant's complaint, finding that the complaint made a collateral

attack on a proceeding before the Department of Labor, Office of Workers'

Compensation Programs (DOL). In her request, complainant asserted that

specific changes should be made to documents submitted by the agency

to DOL pursuant to a settlement agreement; however, the agreement had

became void.<1>

In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior decision, the requesting

party must submit written argument that tends to establish that at least

one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met. The Commission's

scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not

merely a form of a second appeal. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS,

EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). The Commission finds that

the complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that, the request does not identify a clearly

erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that

the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices or operation of the agency.

Because complainant's claims in the EEO process seek to affect agency

documents properly submitted in a proceeding before DOL, her complaint

is a collateral attack on a legal matter before another agency. For this

reason, we find that the agency's dismissal of her complaint was correct.

Also, as stated in the previous decision, the agency has the right to

contravene her claim of traumatic injury before DOL, and the determination

on her workers' compensation claim lies with DOL.

After reconsidering 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. 01A50905 remains the

Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative

appeal on the decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)

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 (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

____03-21-05______________

Date

1Complainant sought EEO counseling in December 2003, claiming

discrimination based on national origin (Hispanic) and disability

(tendinitis) when the agency did not believe her account of an

on-the-job injury in October 2003, and made false statements

to DOL. In a settlement agreement dated January 12, 2004 (SA),

the agency agreed, inter alia, to revise the forms submitted

to DOL. On June 28, 2004, complainant was advised by the agency

that it could not comply with the SA and to file a new complaint.

The dismissal of her new complaint was the subject of the appeal

in the previous decision.