05971087
11-04-1999
Brenda J. Thornton, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Brenda J. Thornton v. United States Postal Service
05971087
November 4, 1999
Brenda J. Thornton, )
Appellant, )
) Request No. 05971087
v. ) Appeal No. 01971924
) Agency No. 4A-105-1049-96
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 16, 1997, Brenda J. Thornton (the appellant) timely initiated
a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
to reconsider the decision in Brenda J. Thornton v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr.,
Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01971924
(September 12, 1997). EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners
may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission 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 a 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 stated below, appellant's
request is denied.
The issue presented is whether appellant's request for reconsideration
satisfies the requirements of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c).
On October 3, 1996, appellant received notice of her right to file
a formal complaint of discrimination concerning her termination from
employment. A review of the notice, and its accompanying cover letter,
indicates that appellant was informed that she had to file her formal
complaint within 15 days. She, however, did not file her formal complaint
until October 25, 1996. The agency issued a final decision on December
19, 1996, dismissing appellant's complaint on the grounds that it was
filed in an untimely manner. The previous decision affirmed the agency's
dismissal.
In her request to reconsider (RTR), appellant argued that her termination
warranted an investigation. She submitted, as new and material evidence
that was not readily available when the previous decision was issued,
two newspaper articles dated September 13 and 14, 1997, respectively.
These articles, according to appellant, "[s]how that similar incidents
... happen[ed] at the time of my termination ...." Appellant also
submitted a copy of a January 19, 1996 letter to a union official
concerning the merits of her complaint and numerous documents that were
already contained in the case file.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the
requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to
establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c) is
met. The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is
narrow. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749
(September 28, 1989). An reconsideration request is not merely a form
of a second appeal. Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850
(September 7, 1990). Instead, it is an opportunity to submit newly
discovered evidence, not previously available; to establish substantive
error in a previous decision; or to explain why the previous decision
will have effects beyond the case at hand. Lyke v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Request No. 05900769 (September 27, 1990).
Appellant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29
C.F.R. �1614.407(c). Appellant merely sought to argue the merits of her
complaint and, therefore, did not establish any reconsideration criteria.
We concur with the previous decision's determination that appellant's
complaint was filed in an untimely manner. We also note that appellant
never provided an adequate justification for extending the 15-day filing
period.
After a review of appellant's request to reconsider, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that appellant's
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in
EEOC Appeal No. 01971924 (September 12, 1997) remains the Commission's
final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from
a decision of the Commission on a request to reconsider.
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:
November 4, 1999
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat