0520120121
02-23-2012
Albert White, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Albert White,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120121
Appeal No. 0120113437
Hearing No. 480-2010-00184X
Agency No. 1F901028709
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Albert
White v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113437 (October
19, 2011). 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. The previous decision affirmed
the Agency’s final order after finding that the EEOC Administrative
Judge’s (AJ) issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate
and that the preponderance of the record evidence did not establish
that discrimination occurred. In his request for reconsideration,
Complainant argued that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact and law. Specifically, he maintains
that the AJ erred in stating that he, Complainant, met with the District
Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) on June 1, 2009. According to
Complainant, he submitted an accommodation request on May 29, 2009, which
was received by the Agency on June 1, 2009, but that he never met with
the DRAC on that day or any other day. Complainant, among other things,
also took issue with other findings of the AJ, such as his January 2009
job offer being modified and that he never returned to Los Angeles.
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. 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 that Complainant has not met the criteria for
reconsideration. Even if the AJ erred in finding that Complainant met
with the DRAC on June 1, 2009, we do not find that this is a material
error. More importantly, we find that our previous decision, in its
de novo review, correctly found that there were no genuine issues of
material fact or any credibility issues which required a hearing, and
that, even assuming all facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact
finder could not find in his favor.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120113437 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
__2/23/12________________
Date
2
0520120121
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120121