0520130021
02-28-2013
Michelle Dorsey, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Michelle Dorsey,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130021
Appeal No. 0120111114
Agency No. 1H-331-0063-08
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Michelle Dorsey v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111114 (August 29, 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).
The facts and procedural background are set forth in the previous decision and are incorporated herein by reference. We note the following salient facts: On October 20, 2008, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
(1) [The Plant Manager at the Miami, Florida Processing and Distribution Center] will reimburse [Complainant] 23.94 hours of LWOP [leave without pay]. This will be processed ASAP [as soon as possible], but should be completed in no more than 2 pay periods.
(2) All indications of LWOP and light duty will be removed from ERMS [Enterprise Resource Management System] and all files.
The previous decision, after reviewing documentation provided pursuant to a supplemental investigation ordered by EEOC Appeal No. 0120090734 (September 16, 2010), found that the Agency was in in compliance with the settlement agreement. Specifically, the previous decision found that "[d]ocuments were provided showing that the required adjustments were made. The Agency included an affidavit that the information concerning LWOP and light duty was removed from Complainant's file."
In her reconsideration request, Complainant states, in pertinent part, that:
Yes, the 'light duty' entries were removed from ERMS, but NOT from my files, thus, the light duty issue came about again on October 22, 2008. Just two days after the settlement on October 20, 2008 was made through 'redress' that "light duty' was to be removed from files. If it was removed from ALL files, then how was it used against me on October 22, 2008?
Complaint goes on to state that on October 22, 2008, she was put off the clock when management, using the same "light duty package" that had been in her files, claimed that it did not have any light duty work available. According to Complainant, she was off work for 18 months afterward.
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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17. A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Here, we find no evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration with regard to the previous decision's determination that the Agency was in compliance with the parties' October 20, 2008 settlement agreement.
As noted by the previous decision, the Agency, in its supplemental investigation, provided evidence in the form of documentation and an affidavit that it had complied with the settlement agreement. Specifically, a management official responded in the affirmative when asked "Have all indications of light duty been removed from files that may be in the Labor Relations File pertaining to Complainant?" Complainant, in her request for reconsideration, does not specifically refute this affidavit or the previous decision's reliance upon it. She merely invites the Commission to speculate that the reason she was denied light duty on October 22, 2008, and denied work for an extended period was due to a violation of the settlement agreement and not her medical condition at that time. Nevertheless, we note that Complainant was advised by the previous decision and EEOC Appeal No. 0120090734 to seek EEO counseling on this issue.
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. 0120111114 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
___2/28/13_______________
Date
2
0520130021
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013