Hugh E. Lee, Jr., Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 4, 2011
0520110481 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 4, 2011)

0520110481

11-04-2011

Hugh E. Lee, Jr., Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.




Hugh E. Lee, Jr.,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110481

Appeal No. 0120102032

Agency No. 1H-326-0017-07

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Hugh

E. Lee, Jr. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120102032

(Apr. 8, 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).

In our previous decision, the Commission found that the Agency did

not breach a February 26, 2009, settlement agreement into which the

parties entered. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent

part, that the District Reasonable Accommodation (DRAC) process would

determine whether Complainant could perform the essential functions of

his official position as an Electronic Technician without or without a

reasonable accommodation. The agreement further stated that if the DRAC

determined that Complainant was able to perform the essential functions

of the Electronic Technician position with or without an accommodation,

the Agency would return him to his Electronic Technician position and pay

him for half of the overtime and holiday pay he would have earned if he

had been placed in the Electronic Technician position on March 19, 2008.

Additionally, the agreement provided that if the DRAC determined that

Complainant could not perform the essential functions of the Electronic

Technician position, he would remain in his limited-duty Clerk assignment.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the Agency

violated the Health Information Privacy Act1 and the Rehabilitation Act

when it gave unjustified and unlawful access to his protected medical

records, failed to acknowledge his disability, and failed to respond

to his requests for a reasonable accommodation. Complainant further

contends that the previous decision erred in finding that the Agency

properly examined his ability to perform the essential functions of the

Electronic Technician position under the terms of the agreement.

After a thorough review of the record in this case, we find that our

previous decision properly found that the Agency did not breach the

agreement or act in bad faith when DRAC determined that Complainant

was not able to perform the core physical functions of an Electronic

Technician position. Moreover, to the extent that Complainant

contends that the Agency has denied him a reasonable accommodation,

improperly disclosed his medical documentation, or otherwise violated the

Rehabilitation Act since the execution of the settlement agreement, we

note that we have held that such claims of further discrimination should

be processed as a new complaint, rather than as a breach allegation.

See Bindal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900225

(August 9, 1990). Therefore, if Complainant wants to pursue such claims,

he should raise them as new EEO claims, if he has not already done so.

Regarding Complainant’s claim that the Agency violated the HIPAA,

we note that the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for

Civil Rights enforces this statute, not the Commission.

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. 0120102032 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 4, 2011

Date

1 We presume that Complainant intended to refer to the federal statute

governing health information privacy, the Health Insurance Portability

and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0520110481

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110481