Thomas J. Pigott, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 6, 2002
01A14151_r (E.E.O.C. Mar. 6, 2002)

01A14151_r

03-06-2002

Thomas J. Pigott, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Thomas J. Pigott v. United States Postal Service

01A14151

March 6, 2002

.

Thomas J. Pigott,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A14151

Agency No. 1-J-486-0005-01

DECISION

Complainant appealed to this Commission from the agency's dismissal

of his employment discrimination complaint for stating the same

claim previously raised, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).

In his complaint, complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of

disability (muscular-skeletal disorder). Initially, the agency accepted

complainant's claim for investigation concerning the denial of overtime

work from July 27, 2000 to present. Complainant disagreed with the

agency's definition of his complaint, arguing that it should include:

(1) The agency limited, segregated, and classified complainant in a

way that adversely affected his employment opportunities by maintaining

that he has one certain area of responsibilities, 2nd floor main office;

(2) Complainant made reasonable requests for accommodations such as a

fourteen inch dust mop, right arm stabilizer, and medical statements

made to assist complainant and the agency with his ability to perform

additional duties. The agency refuses to return complainant to

additional duties because it assumes, correctly or incorrectly, that

complainant's disability-related occupational injury creates an increased

risk of further occupational injury and workers compensation costs; and

A comparative employee was not allowed overtime when first brought

to the maintenance department. After filing grievances and a[n] EEO

complaint, management made an agreement that if he submitted medical

documentation that says he can work overtime, management would allow

overtime. The comparative employee settled the grievance and EEO with

back pay, and the right to work overtime. He is not limited or segreated

to where he works, he is not limited to his rehabilitation job offer.

Although complainant has brought medical documentation to allow overtime,

no overtime has been offered.

The agency found that complainant's accepted claim, along with his

comments disputing the definition of his claim, were addressed in a prior

EEO complaint. See Pigott v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01981873 (August 17, 2001), req. for recons. pending EEOC Request

No. 05A11155. In this prior complaint, an EEOC Administrative Judge

(AJ) found, inter alia, that complainant had not been discriminated

against on the basis of disability because there were no overtime jobs

within complainant's restrictions. See Pigott v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Hearing No. 230-97-4058X, at 24-25, (1997). The AJ also

noted that complainant received his assignment to work on the 2nd floor

as settlement of a union grievance, and a �toy� mop as an accommodation.

See id. at 5-6.

Complainant argues that the present complaint is different, noting that

the denial of overtime involved different dates. Complainant has shown

nothing, however, to indicate that the nature of the overtime jobs, or

his medical condition has changed.<1> Therefore, the Commission finds

that the present complaint involves the same matters previously addressed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's dismissal is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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

March 6, 2002

__________________

Date

1Complainant presents a letter from his

physician, clearing complainant to perform any overtime work within his

previously established medical restrictions. This does not raise a new

issue for a separate complaint - the prior decision clearly found that

no overtime work was available within complainant's restrictions.