0520120551
01-25-2013
Kathy K. Roberson, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Kathy K. Roberson,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120551
Appeal No. 0120121646
Agency No. 4K-280-0054-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Kathy K. Roberson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121646 (June 27, 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).
BACKGROUND
In the underlying case, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and age (over 40) when: (1) On September 1, 2010 and ongoing, she was subjected to a hostile work environment when management called her into the office and harassed her on the workroom floor; (2) on February 8, 2011, she was given a Letter of Warning (LOW) for unsatisfactory Job Performance; and (3) her pay status has been reduced because she has been scheduled for five-day work weeks while her co-workers have been scheduled for six-day work weeks. The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency, and the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's decision. The appellate decision affirmed the Agency's final action, finding that the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant requests that the Commission reconsider and overturn its appellate decision. Complainant argues that the decision involved clearly erroneous interpretation of genuine issue of material fact. Complainant contends that the Officer-In-Charge incorrectly stated her work requirements. Complainant submits that her work requirement is 9 hours and 12 minutes a day and 46 hours in five days and 54 hours in six days. In addition to these arguments, Complainant reiterates the arguments from her previous 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 which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or 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 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. 0120121646 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
___1/25/13_______________
Date
2
0520120551
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120551