0520120182
11-29-2012
Guillermo Mojarro, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Guillermo Mojarro,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120182
Appeal No. 0120110250
Hearing No. 480-2011-00113X
Agency No. 4F-926-0213-10
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Guillermo Mojarro v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110250 (Dec. 1, 2011). 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).
BACKGROUND
Complainant filed a class EEO complaint in September 2010, alleging that the Agency had violated Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., through what he alleged was its practice of mandating that certain employees submit to "forensic psychiatric evaluations" before being allowed to return to the work place, and by not properly training medical units and management personnel in their obligations under the Rehabilitation Act. On October 9, 2010, Complainant filed correspondence with this Office in which he expressed his intentions to amend the complaint, and which was docketed as Mojarro v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110250 (Dec. 1, 2011).
Complainant's class complaint was referred to a Commission Administrative Judge (AJ) for a decision on class certification, EEOC Hearing No. 480-2011-00113X. On March 11, 2011, Complainant submitted a Motion to Dismiss to the AJ in which he requested that the class complaint be dismissed, and expressed his intention to pursue the issues through his separately filed individual EEO complaint. In an Order of Dismissal also dated March 11, 2011, the AJ dismissed the hearing request. Accordingly, on December 1, 2011, the Commission issued an administrative closure letter for EEOC Appeal No. 0120110250, in which we notified Complainant that his appeal was closed due to his withdrawal of the class complaint in his letter of March 11, 2011.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant claims that because the Commission issued an administrative closure letter in this complaint, he had been unduly deprived of his rights to file a request for reconsideration, and of his rights to proceed to file a civil action in U.S. District Court. Complainant also made extensive arguments regarding the validity of a settlement agreement he signed with the Agency on April 14, 2011, which settled all of his outstanding EEO complaints at the time. The Agency did not file a statement in opposition to the request for reconsideration that specifically responded to Complainant's arguments regarding his ability to file a request for reconsideration or a civil action.
DETERMINATION
We find that the Complainant's request for reconsideration fails to show that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the Agency. Although the administrative closure letter did not specifically provide for reconsideration rights under 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, we have treated Complainant's letter of December 16, 2011, as a request for reconsideration, and accordingly docketed this Request No. 0520120182 to address his concerns. Through this decision, Complainant will also be notified of his right to file a civil action in Agency No. 4F-926-0213-10. We find that our administrative closure in this case was proper as Complainant had notified the AJ on March 11, 2011, of his intent to withdraw his class complaint, and that by doing so, there was no longer any issue which was before the Commission to review.
Complainant's arguments regarding the validity of a settlement agreement he signed with the Agency on April 14, 2011, and the Agency's response to those arguments, will be addressed in a separately filed request for reconsideration, EEOC Request No. 0520120253.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120110250 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
November 29, 2012
Date
2
0520120182
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120182