Kay Boone, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Mid-Atlantic Area) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 21, 2001
05A20140 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 21, 2001)

05A20140

12-21-2001

Kay Boone, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Mid-Atlantic Area) Agency.


Kay Boone v. United States Postal Service

05A20140

December 21, 2001

.

Kay Boone,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Mid-Atlantic Area)

Agency.

Request No. 05A20140

Appeal No. 01996843

Agency No. 4-D-290-0057-98

Hearing No. 140-99-8030X

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Kay Boone

v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01996843 (September 27,

2001). In her complaint, complainant alleges discrimination on the bases

of race (Black) and sex (female) when: (1) on November 10, 1997, she was

yelled at and verbally fired; (2) on November 14, 1997, she was issued

a letter directing her to report to work; (3) by letter dated November

25, 1997, and received on December 3, 1997, she was issued a Notice of

Removal; and (4) on January 2, 1998, her removal became effective.

The Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a summary decision finding no

genuine issue of material fact on any issue alleged by complainant.

The AJ held, inter alia, that complainant did not establish that she was

discharged without cause or that she was singled out for termination while

similarly situated employees not in her protected group were treated more

favorably. Instead, the AJ noted that complainant had admitted several

of the actions outlined in the agency's Notice of Removal. Accordingly,

the record indicated that there was cause for complainant's termination

and complainant had not presented any evidence to rebut the assertions of

the agency. Lastly, the AJ found no evidence presented by complainant

that could raise an inference of discriminatory motives or harassment.

The Commission affirmed the final agency decision which adopted the

recommended decision by the AJ.

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).

On request for reconsideration, complainant notes a typographical error

in the lower decision. Issue No. 3 indicated that the letter was dated

November 25, 1977, rather than November 25, 1997. Complainant also

restates arguments previously considered by the AJ and the Commission

in its lower decision.

After a review of the 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. 01996843 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

December 21, 2001

__________________

Date