Jennifer Brady, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 31, 2007
0520070785 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 31, 2007)

0520070785

08-31-2007

Jennifer Brady, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Jennifer Brady,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 0520070785

Appeal No. 0120071019

Agency No. 1C451001906

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jennifer

Brady v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071019 (June

29, 2007). 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).

In the underlying case, complainant alleged that she was discriminated

against in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. Complainant requested a hearing

before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge

(AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding that no genuine

issues of fact existed such that a hearing was warranted. The AJ found

that complainant failed to establish that she was discriminated against

as she alleged. The agency adopted the AJ's findings. Complainant

appealed that determination to the Commission. In Brady v. United

States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071019 (June 29, 2007), the

Commission found that the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a

hearing and affirmed the agency's final order finding no discrimination.

Complainant filed this request for reconsideration with the Commission.

In complainant's request for reconsideration, complainant argues that

the AJ relied upon perjured testimony, that the underlying decision

contains errors of fact, that she provided evidence that she contacted

OPM, and that the agency did not provide a form 50 for a co-worker.

We find that these arguments fail to show either that the appellate

decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact

or law; or the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the

policies, practices, or operations of the agency. With regard to the

AJ's reliance on allegedly perjured testimony, the Commission reviewed the

underlying case de novo, and therefore the AJ's reliance upon any specific

evidence is not material. With regard to the errors of fact, complainant

points out that the underlying decision contains errors regarding dates.

However, we find that these errors are not material to the overall finding

that complainant failed to establish that a genuine issue of material

fact existed such that a hearing is warranted. Finally, with regard to

complainant's arguments that she provided evidence that she contacted

OPM, and that the agency did not provide a form 50 for a co-worker,

we note that complainant previously raised these matters on appeal.

However, 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), 9-17 (November

9, 1999). As such, we decline to address these arguments.

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. 0120071019 remains the

Commission's final 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 (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

____8-31-07______________

Date

2

0520070785

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

3

0520070785