Cheryl L. Rice, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 3, 2005
01a51406 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 3, 2005)

01a51406

03-03-2005

Cheryl L. Rice, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Cheryl L. Rice v. United States Postal Service

01A51406

3/03/05

.

Cheryl L. Rice,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A51406

Agency No. 4E-590-0018-04

DECISION

Upon review, the Commission finds that complainant's complaint was

properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely

EEO Counselor contact. In her complaint, complainant alleged that she

was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex

(female), disability, and reprisal for prior EEO activity when:

On February 28, 2004, complainant learned from the Office of Personnel

Management that she was illegally required to waive Continuation of Pay

(COP) and compensation rights, in relation to an injury she sustained

on December 19, 1989;

On April 17, 2004, complainant learned during a conversation with a

retired USPS career manager, that she was protected by law against

discrimination based on being a Caucasian mother of a racially mixed

African-American child when she failed to receive a postmaster position

in rural Montana;

On December 27, 1985, complainant was informed that she received an

overpayment of COP totaling 40 hours for her injury of September 10,

1985, and that several of her COP hours would be changed to Leave Without

Pay;<1> and

On April 21, 2004, complainant asked OWCP to remove from her file

collusive letters of falsehoods that were repeated in an OWCP statement

of accepted facts, which she stated resulted in her OWCP claim being

wrongfully closed and her being terminated from the agency in 1987.

The record discloses that complainant alleges that she was forced to

waive her COP rights in 1989, that her non-selection took place in

1983, that her COP was altered in 1985, and that she was terminated

from the agency in 1987. Complainant did not initiate contact with

an EEO Counselor until March 24, 2004, which is beyond the forty-five

(45) day limitation period. On appeal, complainant has presented no

persuasive arguments or evidence warranting an extension of the time

limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact. Accordingly, the agency's

final decision dismissing complainant's complaint is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the

request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission

will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only

in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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

_____3/03/05_____________

Date

1Allegation 3, as stated above, has been

revised according to the record. As stated in the FAD, the allegation

was nonsensical: �Complainant's Office of Worker's Compensation Program

(OWCP) accepted injury of September 10, 1985 of permanent and total

disability was a consequence of EEO retaliation by the agency, including

interfering with prescribed medical treatment and doctor diagnosis.�