Bette P. Travis,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 16, 20180520180298 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Bette P. Travis,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency. Request No. 0520180298 Appeal No. 0120180449 Agency No. 6E-000-0004-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180449 (Jan. 31, 2018). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), 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(c). On July 1, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on April 27, 2017, she became aware that her medical records were improperly accessed and shared without her knowledge or approval. The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency reasoned that an Agency Attorney requested Complainant’s medical records because Complainant had an active District Court case, and the records were requested in relation to that case, and were provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as part of the discovery process in that case. 1 While it is the Commission’s present policy to randomly assign a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website, in her request, Complainant has requested the use of her real name. 0520180298 2 Complainant appealed and in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180449 (Jan. 31, 2018), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal. The Commission found that the release of the medical records was so intertwined with Complainant’s District Court case, that the proper recourse was for Complainant to raise her concerns within that process. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously raised on appeal. Complainant contends that her health records were obtained without her permission and that the Agency purposely provided false information regarding discovery. The Commission emphasizes 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), at 9-18 (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here. Complainant has presented no evidence demonstrating that the Commission erred in finding that Complainant was challenging actions related to a civil action being adjudicated in a U.S. District Court and that the proper recourse was in that proceeding. As such, Complainant has not put forth any persuasive arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration. 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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180449 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. 0520180298 3 The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations August 16, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation