05980804
02-05-1999
Beatrice W. Edwards, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Beatrice W. Edwards v. United States Postal Service
05980804
February 5, 1999
Beatrice W. Edwards, )
Appellant, )
) Request No. 05980804
v. ) Appeal No. 01974938
) Agency No. 1K-221-0011-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On May 20, 1998, Beatrice W. Edwards (hereinafter referred to
as appellant) timely initiated a request to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to reconsider the decision
in Beatrice W. Edwards v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01974938 (May 5, 1998).
EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion,
reconsider any previous decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party
requesting reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence
which tends to establish one or more of the following three criteria:
new and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1);
the previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy, 29
C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the decision is of such exceptional nature as
to have substantial precedential implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).
For the reasons set forth herein, the appellant's request is denied.
The issue presented is whether the previous decision properly affirmed
the agency's final decision dismissing appellant's complaint for failure
to state a claim.
Appellant filed her formal complaint on November 21, 1996, alleging
discrimination based on reprisal. On May 15, 1997, the agency issued
its final agency decision (FAD), dismissing appellant's complaint for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a). The previous
decision affirmed the agency's action, finding that appellant failed to
present persuasive argument or evidence that she stated a claim.
At the time of the events herein, appellant worked as a Distribution
Clerk in Woodbridge, Virginia. She alleged discrimination when she
received a letter from the agency dated September 23, 1996. In that
letter, the agency acknowledged receipt of another complaint (Complaint
No. 1K-221-1061-96) and informed her that its regional EEO office would
review her case and "will make the decision to accept or dismiss or
partially accept or partially dismiss your complaint."<1>
In her complaint, appellant alleged that agency officials "entered into
a chain conspiracy to deny [appellant] her civil rights" when it did
not write a letter to EEOC requesting a hearing before an administrative
judge for Complaint No. 1K-221-1061-96. In addition, in her complaint,
she identified three agency EEO managers and requested that an outside
entity investigate the instant complaint.
The agency's FAD dismissed appellant's complaint, finding that she was
not aggrieved, in that, she did not suffer a personal loss or harm with
respect to a term or condition of her employment. The agency contended
that it followed normal EEO processing procedures with regard to
Complaint No. 1K-221-1061-96. The agency also noted that when EEO
managers are identified in a complaint, that complaint is referred
to another region for investigation.
In her request for reconsideration (RTR), appellant repeats her
arguments made below, asserting that her complaint states a claim
under the Commission's regulations. She contends that she was denied
"due process" because the agency delayed completion of the EEO report
for Complaint No. 1K-221-1061-96. Also, she makes general arguments
of ongoing violations of the EEO laws because the agency dismissed
Complaint No. 1D-221-1026-96 and Complaint No. 1K-221-1061-96. Finally,
we observe that appellant refers to matters not before us (e.g.,
"dismissing twenty...complaint issues"). The agency did not submit
comments in response to the request.
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision
when the party requesting reconsideration submits written argument or
evidence that tends to establish at least one of the criteria of 29
C.F.R. �1614.407(c). Having reviewed the record and submissions of the
parties, we find that appellant's request fails to meet the criteria of
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c).
In her complaint, appellant states her dissatisfaction with the agency's
processing of an earlier complaint. Normally, complainants should raise
such concerns with the agency officials responsible for the quality of
complaint processing, who must attempt to resolve the dissatisfaction.
EEOC Management Directive 110 (October 22, 1992) (MD-110), Chapter 4,
Section 8.
In the matter before us, appellant alleges discrimination with regard to
the agency's letter acknowledging receipt of her complaint. According to
MD-110, after a complainant files a complaint, the agency must acknowledge
it and inform the complainant of the respective obligations of the parties
during the processing of the complaint. See MD-110, Chapter 4 et seq.
Based on our review of the record, we find that the agency's letter was
properly issued and is in conformance with processing requirements.
To the extent that appellant argues that the agency failed to request
a hearing before an EEOC AJ, appellant misunderstands her rights.
As she was advised during counseling, appellant's request for a hearing
was premature. Where an agency dismisses a complaint on procedural
grounds pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107 et seq., as was the case
herein, an investigation and notice of her right to a hearing under 29
C.F.R. �1614.108(f) would not be correct.
Finally, we have examined the record before us and find that the agency
did not act improperly with regard to the processing of appellant's
complaint. For the above reasons, the Commission finds that appellant's
request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c).
Appellant has not presented any new or material evidence or established
that the previous decision's finding was erroneous. Accordingly,
the Commission denies appellant's request to reconsider the previous
decision.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the appellant's request for reconsideration,
the previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the appellant's request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29
C.F.R. �1614.407(c). It is therefore the decision of the Commission to
deny the appellant's request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01974938
(May 5, 1998) remains the Commission's final decision. There is no
further right of administrative appeal on a decision of the Commission
on a Request for Reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
February 5, 1999
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
1 In Complaint No. 1K-221-1061-96, appellant alleged discrimination
based on reprisal with regard to the delay in completion of
the EEO Counselor's report for Complaint No. 1D-221-1026-96.
Complaint No. 1D-221-1026-96 was remanded to the agency. EEOC Appeal
No. 01966328 (June 10, 1997). The agency's dismissal of Complaint
No. 1K-221-1061-96 is pending before the Commission. EEOC Appeal
No. 01971837.