Jane J. Liu, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 11, 2011
0520110073 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 11, 2011)

0520110073

01-11-2011

Jane J. Liu, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.


Jane J. Liu,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Pacific Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110073

Appeal No. 0120102257

Agency No. 1F-968-0003-08

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jane

J. Liu v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102257 (Aug. 26, 2010).

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 she was discriminated against

on the basis of age (67) when she was not hired for a position as a

seasonal, casual employee in or about November 2007. At the conclusion

of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of

the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing

before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested

a hearing, and over her objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted

the Agency's October 31, 2008, motion for a decision without a hearing

on March 26, 2010.

Specifically, the AJ found that Complainant failed to present any

evidence of age discrimination. The AJ determined that the evidence

presented supports the conclusion that Complainant's application

for the position in question was not further processed after the

Agency discovered that she had been convicted of two misdemeanors.

Additionally, Complainant answered the application question regarding

prior convictions untruthfully. Finally, the AJ noted that the Agency

hired at least four individuals who were similar in age to Complainant,

or older, which the AJ opined, defeated any inference that Complainant

was not hired because of her age. The Agency subsequently issued a

final order adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove

that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.

ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the

Commission's decision contains clearly erroneous interpretations of

material fact and law. In support of this argument, Complainant

reiterates and rephrases many of the arguments from her appeal.

Specifically, Complainant argues that the evidence regarding the Agency's

selection of individuals who were near the same age as Complainant,

or older, for the seasonal positions, should have been interpreted in

Complainant's favor. Additionally, Complainant argues that the Agency's

line of questioning regarding any prior conviction was unlawful unless

it could be demonstrated that obtaining this information was related to

business necessity. Finally, Complainant avers that her answer of "No"

to question E, 7a on the job application was correct and honest because

the matters were under 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 or contentions 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 reconsidering 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. 0120102257 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

__1/11/11________________

Date

2

0520110073

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110073