05A30199
03-04-2003
Boknamsik L. Horten, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Boknamsik L. Horten v. United States Postal Service
05A30199
March 4, 2003
.
Boknamsik L. Horten,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30199
Appeal No. 01A10689
Agency No. 4-C-164-0032-99
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Boknamsik L. Horten (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Boknamsik L. Horten v. United States Postal Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A10689 (September 26, 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).
On November 5, 1999, complainant filed a formal complaint of
discrimination with the agency, in which she alleged that the agency had
subjected her to discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. In that
complaint, complainant claimed that she had been subjected to unlawful
discrimination on the bases of her race (Korean), national origin
(Korea), sex, color (yellow), and disability (carpal tunnel syndrome,
cervical pain, anxiety), and in retaliation for engaging in protected
equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity, when (1) on April 4, 1999,
a 1994 EEO settlement agreement was breached; (2) on September 3, 1999,
she was notified that her June 22, 1999, mediation settlement would not
be honored, and (3) on or about September 30, 1999, her Distribution
Clerk position was posted, and, thereafter, on November 5, 1999, she
was informed that her failure to bid on a position would result in her
being placed in a residual vacant position.
In its final agency decision, the agency dismissed claim (1) for failure
to state a claim, and found no discrimination as to the remaining claims.
Complainant subsequently appealed the final agency decision to the
Commission. In our decision on the appeal, we affirmed the agency's
final decision. We first noted that complainant had not challenged
on appeal the agency's dismissal of claim (1). We then found that,
while the record showed that the agency had breached the June 22,
1999 settlement agreement as alleged in claim (2), the sole surviving
discrimination claim which served as a basis for that settlement agreement
was closely related factually to the matter at issue in claim (3),
which had itself been thoroughly investigated by the agency. On this
basis we concluded that there was no reason to return complainant to
the informal complaint process regarding the underlying matter at issue
in claim (2). We further found that the record showed complainant had
failed to prove discrimination as to either of those claims. In her
request for reconsideration, complainant renews many of the claims she
raised in her earlier appeal, and challenges the Commission's decision
to address the merits of the underlying claim which led to the settlement
agreement at issue in claim (2). The agency responded that complainant's
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and should
therefore be denied.
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. We note that,
despite complainant's arguments in her request for reconsideration,
including her challenge to our decision on how to address the allegation
underlying claim (2) in light of the agency's breach of the June 22, 1999,
settlement agreement, she has not persuaded us that our prior decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law,
or that the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. Accordingly, the decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01A10689 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
March 4, 2003
Date