0520100090
01-22-2010
Ron B. Lightsey, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Ron B. Lightsey,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520100090
Appeal No. 0120082304
Agency No. 1H301006207
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Ron
B. Lightsey v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120082304 (September
17, 2008). 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 record reflects that complainant filed a formal complaint, alleging
that he was discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. The record
shows that pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, the agency
was required to convert part-time flexible employees to full-time
regular status. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on or about June 25,
2007, employees with less seniority were converted to full-time status on
August 4, 2007, approximately two months before complainant's conversion
on October 5, 2007. According to the evidence in the record, complainant's
conversion did not take place as scheduled due to a computer error.
Subsequent to the agency's resubmission of complainant's transfer
request, complainant was converted to full-time status on October 5,
2007, retroactive to August.
Following the agency's investigation, complainant was provided with
the Report of Investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or a final agency
decision without a hearing. Complainant did not request a hearing,
and the agency issued a final decision on March 11, 2008.
In its decision, the agency found that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination because he failed to show
a nexus between his prior EEO activity and management's alleged adverse
action. Moreover, the agency found that assuming arguendo complainant
had established a prima facie case, the agency had articulated legitimate
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the agency
determined that complainant's conversion was delayed due to a computer
error. The agency noted that upon resolution of this error, complainant
was converted to full-time status on October 5, 2007. Moreover, the agency
found that the Operations Support Specialist and Complement Coordinator
(OSS), who was responsible for converting complainant to full-time status,
had no involvement in complainant's prior EEO complaints, and was unaware
of his prior EEO activity. The agency found that complainant failed to
provide any evidence indicating that the agency's reasons were a pretext
for discrimination. Accordingly, the agency found that complainant had
failed to show that he was subjected to discrimination.
On April 14, 2008, complainant appealed the agency's decision to
the Commission. In its appellate decision, the Commission found that
complainant failed to establish a nexus between his prior EEO activity
and the alleged retaliation. To this end, the Commission found that
complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Accordingly, the Commission affirmed the final agency decision.
On October 22, 2009, complainant filed a request for reconsideration.
In his request, complainant reiterates that the Human Resources Manager
was aware of his prior EEO activity; moreover, complainant alleges that
the agency did not provide information he requested regarding an agency
employee, who was converted to full-time status prior to complainant.
Finally, complainant contends that the appellate decision erred in
finding that the OSS had no knowledge of his prior EEO activity.
In a request to reconsider, a complainant is required to show 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. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). "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).
This Commission carefully considered all of the record evidence at the
time it rendered the previous decision, and complainant has offered no
persuasive reason why the decision should be reconsidered now.
In addressing complainant's contentions, we find that complainant has
not presented evidence or argument to show that the Commission erred
in affirming the agency's finding of no discrimination. Specifically,
we find that the appellate decision correctly found that the OSS had
no knowledge of complainant's prior EEO activity. Accordingly, we find
that the appellate decision correctly determined that complainant failed
to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Moreover, to the extent that complainant alleges he did not receive
information about an agency employee, we find that the record was
impartially and adequately developed as required under 29 C.F.R. �
1614.108(b). We remind complainant that if he was not satisfied with
the record, he should not have withdrawn his request for a hearing
and requested the AJ to oversee further development of the record. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.109(a); Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive
for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, 7-7 (November 9, 1999).
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. 0120082304 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 (P0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
____1/22/10______________
Date
2
0520100090
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0520100090