05a00962
09-06-2000
Hazel M. Pires-Kettering, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Hazel M. Pires-Kettering v. United States Postal Service
05A00962
09-06-00
.
Hazel M. Pires-Kettering,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00962
Appeal No. 01A01162
Agency Nos. 4E-800-1315-96;
4E-800-0281-97; 4E-800- 0046-99
DECISION
On June 13, 2000, Hazel M. Pires-Kettering (complainant) timely
initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(the Commission) to reconsider the decision in Hazel M. Pires-Kettering
v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A01162 (May 23, 2000). EEOC regulations provide that
the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous decision
where the party demonstrates that: (1) the previous decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2)
the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices
or operation of the agency. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be
codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).<1>
For the reasons set forth below, the complainant's request is denied.
The issue presented is whether the previous decision properly found that
the agency did not discriminate against complainant based on her sex,
national origin (Portuguese), age, and reprisal for prior EEO activity
with regard to matters concerning discipline, scheduling, and pay.
Complainant filed three complaints of discrimination on October 22, 1996,
May 30, 1997, and November 14, 1998, alleging discrimination, as follows:
when she received a letter of warning (LOW), later reduced to restrictions
on use of sick leave;
when she received more difficult schedules (two-hour lunches and six-day
weeks) than other PTFs; and
when she did not receive higher pay for a higher-level position.
The agency issued its final agency decision (FAD) on November 9, 1999,
finding no discrimination.<2> The agency explained its reasons for its
actions, i.e., that the LOW was issued because complainant had a large
number of unscheduled absences; that the scheduling of PTFs depends
on the volume of mail and other PTFs had similar schedules; and that
complainant received the proper pay upon her promotion. The agency found
that complainant failed to establish that these reasons were pretextual or
based on prohibited considerations of discrimination. Complainant filed
an appeal, and the previous decision affirmed the agency's FAD.
In the Request to Reconsider (RTR), complainant asserts that the previous
decision made errors of fact and law, but provides no explanation
of those errors. She states that the previous decision was vague and
appears to argue that the brevity of the previous decision violated
Commission regulations.
In order to merit reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the
requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish
that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) 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 RTR is not a form of a second
appeal. Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7,
1990). Having reviewed complainant's request and the record herein,
we find that complainant fails to show error in the previous decision
or demonstrate that the Commission's decision will have a significant
impact on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
The agency's FAD provided complainant with findings and analyses on the
merits of each claim as required by 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). We find
that the previous decision was properly issued following a de novo review
of the case record and our determination that the preponderance of the
evidence did not establish that discrimination occurred. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(a).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
CONCLUSION
After a review of the request for reconsideration, the previous decision,
and the entire record, the Commission finds that the complainant's
request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and
it is the decision of the Commission to deny the complainant's request.
The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01A01162 (May 23, 2000)
remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a request
for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANTS' RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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 (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
___09-06-00_______________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2Complainant initially requested a hearing but withdrew her request, and
the Administrative Judge returned the matter to the agency for issuance
of a FAD.