0520100415
08-19-2010
Edwin C. Alvarado, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Edwin C. Alvarado,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520100415
Appeal No. 0120090207
Hearing No. 510-2008-00143X
Agency No. 4H-327-0150-07
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Edwin C. Alvarado v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090207 (May 7, 2010). 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).
Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against and harassed on the bases of disability (physical and mental), age (50), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) on July 17, 2007, management told him that he was not entitled to Leave Without Pay Injury-on-Duty (LWOP-IOD); and (2) on July 20, 2007, his request for LWOP-IOD was denied. An EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
In its appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding. The Commission found that, even assuming that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination as to all bases, the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action; namely, that Complainant was told that updated medical information was needed for the dates in question but had not submitted the medical information need for the July 17, 2007 and July 20, 2007 dates. Once Complainant provided the updated medical discrimination he was granted the LWOP-IOD for the dates claimed. The Commission found that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. The Commission also found that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to a hostile work environment.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the AJ did not see the entire picture. Specifically, Complainant contends that he has been subjected to a very aggressive management team. He maintains that he has been subjected to management's untruths, and his privacy has been violated. Complainant contends that the Agency has caused him to lose a significant amount of leave and money due to the Agency's hostile work environment. Further, Complainant maintains that the Agency has a history of being hostile towards people of Puerto Rican decent and he maintains that the classification of Puerto Ricans as either Black or White has been oversimplified.
In response, the Agency asks that Complainant's request for reconsideration be denied. The Agency argues that Complainant failed to show that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law.
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 Commission finds that Complainant failed to show that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or show that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. With respect to Complainant's contentions in his request for reconsideration, the Commission finds that Complainant presented these arguments in the underlying case and the arguments were addressed in the AJ's decision. We find that Complainant has not provided any information which suggests that he was discriminated against with respect to the issues in this complaint. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120090207 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
August 19, 2010
Date
2
0520100415
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520100415