0520120279
02-13-2013
Gary L. Logan, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Gary L. Logan,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120279
Appeal No. 0120112595
Agency No. 4K220011906
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Gary L. Logan v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112595 (January 12, 2012). 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 underlying case, Complainant alleged that the EEOC Administrative Judge erred when she issued a decision without a hearing finding that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency discriminated against him on the basis of his disability when from July 7, 2006, management disregarded his disabilities and medical documentation by: (1) delaying providing him with a limited duly job offer; and (2) assigning him work outside his medical restrictions. The AJ found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on March 30, 2011, finding that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency denied him a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and failed to proffer any evidence to support his contention that management officials assigned him to work outside his medical restrictions. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ's decision.
The Appellate decision affirmed the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Specifically, the appellate decision determined that once Complainant provided the Agency with the required medical documentation to support his request for light duty, the Agency provided him with work within his medical restrictions. Additionally, with respect to Complainant's contentions that on several occasions management officials assigned him work outside his medical restriction, the appellate decision concurred with the AJ's determination that Complainant failed to proffer any evidence to support this claim because the record showed that Complainant's limited duty position was fully commensurate with his "documented medical restrictions", and that Complainant at no time informed management that the duties assigned to him were outside these restrictions.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant requests that the Commission reconsider its appellate decision. In his request, Complainant admittedly reiterates many of his arguments on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Complainant is reminded that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Ch. 9 � VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, the Commission finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Neither has Complainant argued or demonstrated that the underlying decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
CONCLUSION
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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120112595 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
____2/13/13______________
Date
2
0520120279
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120279