0520120594
01-25-2013
Helen P. Skinner, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Helen P. Skinner,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120594
Appeal No. 0120121875
Agency No. 4G-335-0064-12
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Helen P. Skinner v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121875 (July 20, 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).
Our previous decision affirmed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex and age when it sent her December 27, 2011, and January 27, 2012, invoice statements requesting payments totaling $4,113.48. The Agency dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Complainant, who contacted an EEO Counselor on January 26, 2012, did not initiate EEO counseling within the 45-day limitation period and that the complaint failed to state a claim because it was a collateral attack on a matter governed by the Debt Collection Act of 1982.
In our decision, we noted that, as a result of February and April 1999 grievance settlements, the Agency believed that Complainant had received some payments to which she was not entitled. We also noted that the Agency sent Complainant a September 1999 letter of demand asking her to repay the monies and that Complainant filed a September 1999 grievance on the matter. We concluded that the alleged discriminatory event occurred in September 1999 and that the 2011 and 2012 letters were a repetition of the 1999 letter. Noting that Complainant waited more than 12 years before contacting an EEO Counselor, and applying the doctrine of laches, we found that Complainant did not initiate EEO counseling in a timely manner. Having found that Complainant's EEO Counselor contact was untimely, we did not need to address the Agency's determination that the complaint failed to state a claim.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant asserts that her 1999 grievance still has not been settled. She states that she retired from the Agency in July 2012 and that the Agency's Retirement Unit notified her that her outstanding debt to the Agency could delay receipt of her first retirement payment. Complainant argues that the Agency has willfully delayed her compensation.
We remind Complainant 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here. She has offered no persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of the time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. Complainant has not demonstrated that the previous decision clearly erred in finding that her EEO Counselor contact was untimely.
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. 0120121875 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
January 25, 2013
Date
2
0520120594
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120594