05970433
02-17-1999
Georgean Rockenstein, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Georgean Rockenstein v. United States Postal Service
05970433
February 17, 1999
Georgean Rockenstein, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05970433
) Appeal No. 01963163
) Agency No. 4-C-150-1020-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
GRANTING OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 5, 1997, the United States Postal Service (hereinafter
referred to as the agency) initiated a request to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider the decision in Georgean
Rockenstein v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01963163
(December 30, 1996). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commissioners
may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision.
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration must submit
written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more of
the following three criteria: new and material evidence is available
that was not readily available when the previous decision was issued,
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved an erroneous
interpretation of law, regulation or material fact, or misapplication of
established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the previous decision
is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential
implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). The agency's request is
granted.
The issue in this case is whether appellant's complaint is moot. The
record shows that appellant filed an EEO complaint alleging sex
discrimination when, in December 1995, she was verbally abused,
intimidated, and humiliated by a higher level management official
(RMO). The record shows that when appellant initiated her EEO complaint in
December 1995 she and the RMO worked together at the agency's Pittsburgh
District Office. Sometime thereafter, the RMO was transferred to the
Cleveland District Office as District Manager. The previous decision
found that appellant's claim was not moot primarily because appellant
was then serving a temporary detail at the agency's Area Office where
she came into contact with the RMO.
In its request for reconsideration, the agency argues that appellant's
claim is now moot because she is no longer detailed to the Area Office and
there is no reasonable probability that she will ever be in a position to
come into contact with the RMO. The agency submitted an affidavit from
the Human Resources Manager (the Manager) at the Pittsburgh Office. The
Manager testified that there was virtually no chance that appellant
would ever be put in any position where she would come into contact with
the RMO.
After reviewing the previous decision, the Commission finds that the
agency's request should be granted. Because appellant and the RMO are now
permanently assigned to different district offices, we find that there is
no reasonable probability that the alleged violation will recur. It should
be noted that appellant did not request compensatory damages at any stage
of the EEO process. Accordingly, the previous decision is reversed.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the agency's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the agency's
request meets the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407(c)(1), and
it is the decision of the Commission to GRANT the agency's request.
The decision of the Commission in Appeal No. 01963163 is REVERSED. There
is no further right of administrative appeal on this request for
reconsideration.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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
Feb 17, 1999
DATE
Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat