05980664
01-09-2001
Eldora M. Matthews, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.
Eldora M. Matthews v. United States Postal Service (Southwest Area)
05980664
January 9, 2001
.
Eldora M. Matthews,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05980664
Appeal No. 01963281
Agency No. 4-G-770-1213-95
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Eldora
M. Matthews v. United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), EEOC Appeal
No. 01963281 (March 17, 1998).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the
Commission may, in its discretion, 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 her underlying complaint, complainant alleged that the agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (Black), sex (female),
and age (57) when she was repeatedly harassed by management and issued
a Notice of Removal on January 3, 1995. With her request, complainant
includes a copy of a decision by the arbitrator on her union grievance
challenging her removal. This decision found that she was not guilty
of the charges of Failure to Follow Instructions and Unsatisfactory Work
performance contained in Letters of Warning issued to her in 1994. The
arbitrator then found that the agency consequently violated the National
Agreement with complainant's union by issuing the Notice of Removal and
subsequently terminating complainant's employment. Complainant therefore
argues that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by
the agency for her termination, her unsatisfactory work performance,
was without merit and a pretext to mask a discriminatory animus.
We note, however, that the agency's reason for determining that
complainant's work performance was unsatisfactory was that she was still
late 16 times in returning from her route in 1994 even after she had
received the two Letters of Warning. As evidence of discrimination,
complainant then points out that the arbitrator concluded that she
was really only late 11 times, but that four other employees were
late from 22 to 36 times during the same period yet not disciplined
as she was. Nevertheless, we note that our prior decision found that
the employees cited as comparisons by complainant were not similarly
situated as complainant, in that they were regular carriers, as opposed
to complainant's being a relief carrier. Therefore, they were not valid
comparisons and because of this, we determined that complainant could
not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any basis. Hence,
our prior decision did not involve a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law.
After a review of the Complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission thus 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. 01963281 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this 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
January 9, 2001
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.