0520140304
10-31-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140304
Appeal No. 0120132162
Agency No. 4G770008512
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132162 (March 21, 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(c).
In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's determination that it did not breach the terms of a settlement agreement as alleged. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the term of a settlement agreement that provided that Complainant would be afforded a full route evaluation by February 25, 2012. By letter to the Agency dated March 1, 2012, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached a term of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement that term. The Agency issued a letter of determination on July 20, 2012, stating it was in compliance with the agreement. Complainant appealed the determination letter to the Commission. In Price v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123274 (January 23, 2013), we found that the Agency failed to address Complainant's contentions that a route evaluation was different from a route inspection. The decision directed the Agency to supplement the record with evidence, addressing Complainant's contention that she received a route inspection rather than a route evaluation.
The Agency issued a new decision on April 11, 2013, finding that it did not breach the term of the agreement at issue. The Agency provided testimony explaining that in order to evaluate a route, a route inspection must first occur to establish what type and how deliveries are made. The Agency asserted that it conducted a route inspection and route evaluation as required by the settlement agreement.
In the underlying decision, the Commission found that Complainant's route was inspected for six days, from June 2 - 8, 2012 and was evaluated as required by the settlement agreement. As such, the Commission affirmed the Agency's finding that it did not breach the settlement agreement. Complainant requests that the Commission reconsider its underlying decision.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant asserts that the Agency breached the term of the settlement agreement when it failed to perform the inspection and evaluation by February 25, 2012. We find, however, that this error is not material to the case. A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous 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. A reconsideration request is not a second appeal. Here, we find that Complainant's statements in her request does not 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. As noted in the appellate decision, any breach of the settlement agreement was cured once the Agency engaged in the inspection and evaluation process.
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. 0120132162 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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
_10/31/14_________________
Date
2
0520140304
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140304