05A30104
03-20-2003
Virginia Rosas, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Virginia Rosas v. United States Postal Service
05A30104
03-20-03
.
Virginia Rosas,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30104
Appeal No. 01A01378
Agency Nos. 4G-780-0231-98,
4G-780-1028-96
Hearing Nos. 360-99-8419X,
360-97-8387X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Virginia Rosas (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Virginia Rosas v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A01378 (September 11, 2002). 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).
Complainant filed an EEO complaint claiming that she had been
discriminated against on the bases of race (Mexican-American), sex
(female), disability (carpal tunnel syndrome) and reprisal for prior EEO
activity when: 1) from August 1994 thru September 1995, she was sexually
harassed by her supervisor; 2) on October 14, 1996, she was required
to work outside of her medical restrictions; and 3) on March 24, 1998,
she was reassigned from the Personnel Office to the Training Office.
The complaint was accepted for investigation. After complainant was
issued the report of investigation, she requested a hearing before an
EEOC administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ held a hearing, and issued a
decision finding that the complainant had not been discriminated against.
In her decision, issued on September 28, 1999, the AJ found that
complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of sexual
harassment. The AJ also found that complainant had established prima
facie cases of disability, race and reprisal discrimination. The AJ
further concluded that the agency offered legitimate non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions. The AJ found that complainant failed to show
that these reasons were pretext for discrimination. The agency issued a
final order which implemented the AJ's decision. The previous decision
affirmed the agency's implementation of the AJ's decision.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant submitted arguments
in which she attempted to show that the AJ's decision was incorrectly
decided. She argued that she had established a prima facie case of
sexual harassment and that the agency had not shown that it took prompt,
corrective action regarding that harassment. She also argued that she had
shown that the agency's reasons for its actions were pretextual, and that
she should have prevailed. The agency objected to complainant's request
for reconsideration on the grounds that she had not met the criteria
for the granting of reconsideration. With respect to complainant's
arguments, we find that even assuming complainant established a prima
facie case of sexual harassment, the agency did take prompt, corrective
action once it was on notice. The record reflects that once complainant
contacted an EEO Counselor regarding her complaint, the agency conducted
an investigation into the environment at complainant's facility, and
the responsible management official was issued a 30-day suspension and
was transferred to another unit. The complainant did not show that the
agency was on notice before her EEO contact, and none of her witnesses
testified that they had complained about the supervisor to appropriate
individuals within the agency. We also find that the AJ's conclusions
on her other claims were supported by the record and complainant has
not shown that the AJ or the previous decisions were clearly erroneous.
After a review of 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. 01A01378 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
______03-20-03____________
Date