0520140459
09-22-2015
Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140459
Appeal No. 0120132005
Agency No. 4K-230-0111-12
DENIAL
Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132005 (February 26, 2014). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to 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).
By regulation, requests must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days after the party receives the previous decision. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). A document is timely if it is received or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(b). When the complainant designates an attorney as representative, service of all official correspondence shall be made on the attorney and the complainant, but time frames for receipt of materials shall be computed from the time of receipt by the attorney. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(d).
We note that the Commission's previous decision included a Certificate of Mailing indicating that, for purposes of timeliness, the Commission will presume that the decision was received within five (5) calendar days of the date on which it was mailed, February 26, 2014. Because the Certificate of Mailing listed both Complainant and her attorney, they are presumed to have received the previous decision no later than March 3, 2014. Thirty days from that date is April 2, 2014. As Complainant's request did not have a legible postmark, it is timely if it was received by the Commission on or before April 7, 2014. However, Complainant's request was date-stamped as received by the Commission on July 7, 2014, which is beyond the applicable time limit.
Complainant acknowledged that she received the Commission's previous decision on February 28, 2014, but cited the following reasons as justification for the late submission: her former attorney, her financial hardship, and her medical condition. Specifically, Complainant stated that she had dismissed her former attorney on February 28, 2014, that he had not returned all of her case materials to her, and that he had delayed her ability to find a competent attorney to handle her case. In addition, Complainant stated that she was experiencing financial hardship because of her former attorney's incompetence and because she had been out of work on medical leave since August 25, 2013. Moreover, Complainant stated that she had a pre-existing medical condition dating back to 2010 which had almost killed her on three previous occasions, had caused her to be hospitalized for a long period of time, and required her to see physicians on a regular basis.
The Commission's regulations governing the computation of time limits allow for waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c). We sympathize with Complainant's circumstances, but find that she has not offered adequate justification for an extension of the applicable time limit for filing her request. Regarding Complainant's difficulties with her former attorney and her financial hardship, we emphasize that a complainant shall at all times be responsible for proceeding with the complaint whether or not she has designated a representative. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.605(e). Regarding Complainant's medical condition, we have consistently held, in cases involving physical or mental health difficulties, that an extension is warranted only where an individual is so incapacitated by her condition that she is unable to meet the regulatory time limits. See Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05980475 (Aug. 6, 1998); Crear v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05920700 (Oct. 29, 1992). We find that Complainant has not demonstrated that she was so incapacitated by her medical condition that she was unable to file her request in a timely manner.
For the foregoing reasons, Complainant's request is DENIED. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132005 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 (0610)
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. 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.s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__9/22/15________________
Date
2
0520140459
2
0520140459