Hulda W.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 19, 2016
0520160172 (E.E.O.C. May. 19, 2016)

0520160172

05-19-2016

Hulda W.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Hulda W.,1

Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southern Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520160172

Appeal No. 0120152930

Agency No. 1G-701-0043-15

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152930 (January 21, 2016). 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 previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's formal complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. Complainant had alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race, color, disability, age, genetic information, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she received a Letter of Demand for Indebtedness for Employee - Health Benefits on June 16, 2015, and a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Offsets Under the Debt Collection Act on July 11, 2015. She asserted that the manager at the facility where she worked issued the letters to harass her in retaliation for a September 14, 2014, settlement between Complainant and the Agency. On appeal, Complainant submitted evidence that she had paid the amount due prior to the Agency's issuance of the letters.

Citing Commission precedent, we found that challenges to an agency's actions under the Debt Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. � 3711 et seq., are not within the scope of the EEO complaint process and therefore not within the Commission's jurisdiction. We advised Complainant that the proper forum for her to challenge the propriety of the debt-collection process is the administrative process of the Debt Collection Act. We concluded that Complainant's complaint failed to state a claim.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of material fact and will have a substantial impact on the Agency's policies, practices, or operations. She asserts that the Agency's Accounting Service Center has sole responsibility for issuing invoices and receiving payments, and she argues that the letters from her manager were a form of harassment. Complainant also argues that, as a matter of Agency policy and practice, the sole responsibility for debt collection should rest with the Accounting Service Center.

We remind Complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, 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. Complainant has not done so here. As the Commission previously noted, the proper forum for Complainant's arguments about the propriety of the Agency's debt-collection actions and the validity of her alleged debt is the administrative process of the Debt Collection Act.

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. 0120152930 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 (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. Hadden's signature

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

May 19, 2016

Date

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.

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

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

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

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

2

0520160172

3

0520160172