05A31004
09-11-2003
Ivy B. Hei, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Ivy B. Hei v. United States Postal Service
05A31004
09-11-03
.
Ivy B. Hei,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A31004
Appeal No. 01A31675
Agency No. 4F-950-0183-01
Hearing No. 370-A2-2769X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ivy B. Hei (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Ivy B. Hei v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A31675 (June 4, 2003). 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).
Complainant filed an EEO complaint claiming that she had been
discriminated against on the bases of race (Caucasian), national origin
(German / Italian / French / Irish / American), sex (female), religion
(Catholic), age (DOB: April 6, 1953), disability (unspecified) and
reprisal for prior EEO activity when, on July 20, 2001, she received
two demands for payment from a private collection agency in the amounts
of $7,076.73 and $45.84. The complaint was accepted for investigation.
After complainant was issued the report of investigation, she requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ determined that
the case was appropriate for a decision without a hearing, and issued a
decision finding that the complainant had not been discriminated against.
In his summary judgment decision, issued on November 22, 2002, the AJ
found that there were no material facts in genuine dispute and issued
a decision on the record. The AJ found that complainant had failed to
establish prima facie cases of discrimination for any of her claimed
bases, because she had failed to state a claim. Complainant did not
dispute that she owed the money to the agency, due to an overpayment of
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs payments. The matter had been
referred to a collection agency after her retirement from the agency.
Assuming arguendo, that complainant had established her prima facie
cases, the agency offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for
its action, in that complainant owed the money, and she had failed to
make arrangements to pay it back. Complainant failed to show that this
reason was pretext for discrimination, and failed to show that she was
referred to the collection agency in a discriminatory manner. The agency
issued a final order which implemented the AJ's decision. The previous
decision affirmed the agency's implementation of the AJ's decision.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant submitted an argument
in which she attempted to show that the AJ's decision was incorrectly
decided. She claimed that she had been told when she retired that the
debt she owed �would be mitigated.� Complainant did not describe how
unlawful employment discrimination played a factor in her referral to
the collection agency, and did not deny that she owed the money to the
agency. The agency objected to complainant's request for reconsideration
on the grounds that she had not met the criteria for the granting of
reconsideration.
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. 01A31675 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
___09-11-03_______________
Date