0520130299
08-28-2013
Joyce W. Kinuthia, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Joyce W. Kinuthia,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130299
Appeal No. 0120113230
Agency No. 4H300026409
DENIAL
Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in Joyce W. Kinuthia v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113230 (January 31, 2013). 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).
Complainant worked as a Rural Letter Carrier at the Kennesaw Main Post Office in Kennesaw, Georgia. She alleged that the Agency subjected her to hostile work environment harassment on the bases of race (African-American), national origin (African-American), color (Black), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.
Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency denied her appropriate credit for the number of residential deliveries on her route when it conducted a mail count. The previous decision found that a neutral mail counter, and then Complainant supervisor, conducted and oversaw the mail counting process, and verified that Complainant received appropriate credit. The previous decision noted that Complainant signed off on the daily and final mail count volumes, indicating that she agreed with the volume of mail. The previous decision found no indication that Complainant was not given credit for mail during the mail count because of her race, national origin, color, sex, or in reprisal for prior EEO activity.
Complainant also alleged that her supervisor continuously failed to timely inform her of the approval or denial of her leave requests. But Complainant could only recall one specific date when this happened, May 23, 2009. The previous decision found that management articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying her leave on that date. According to the station manager, Complainant submitted the leave request on May 20, 2009, which was a late request and the carrier schedules for that week had already been prepared. Furthermore, there were no leave replacements available to service Complainant's route on May 23, 2009, so the Station Manager denied Complainant's leave request for that date. The previous decision found no evidence to establish that the Agency denied Complainant's leave on that date because of discriminatory animus.
Complainant next challenged a June 11, 2009 letter of warning for failure to follow instructions. Her supervisor maintained that Complainant violated the "clean case" policy when she left mail in her case on June 4, 2009. Complainant believed such a charge was unjustified, because it was unsafe to deliver the mail that day. The previous decision found that management articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for issuing the letter of warning. Management did not believe Complainant's justification because Complainant did not mark on the mail why she did not deliver it, as required by Agency regulations. The previous decision found no indication that the letter of warning was issued because of a prohibited discriminatory basis.
Finally, Complainant alleged that she was harassed when her supervisor denied her request for sick leave to see a mental health physician on September 19, 2009. The previous decision found no evidence that Complainant ever submitted a leave slip for that date, and the record indicates that September 19, 2009 was one of Complainant's scheduled days off. The previous decision found no evidence to indicate that Complainant was denied leave on that day.
Therefore, the previous decision found that Complainant failed to establish that any of the alleged harassment was based on her race, color, national origin, sex, or in reprisal for her prior protected EEO activity.
On March 7, 2013, Complainant's legal representative faxed a "petition for review" of the previous decision, generally asserting that the Commission's previous decision involved clearly erroneous interpretations of both material fact and law.
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. 0120113230 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
____8/28/13______________
Date
2
0520130299
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130299