0520090669
12-10-2009
Karen L. Courvell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Karen L. Courvell,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520090669
Appeal No. 0120082487
Hearing No. 310-2005-00398X
Agency No. 3G-770-0211-05
DENIAL
On September 22, 2009, complainant timely requested that the Commission
reconsider the decision in Karen L. Courvell v. U.S. Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120082487 (September 18, 2009). 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. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b). For the reasons
that follow, the Commission denies complainant's request.
The previous decision affirmed the agency's final order implementing the
decision of the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) that the agency did not
discriminate against complainant in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
In the prior decision, the Commission concluded that complainant did
not show that the agency discriminated against her based on sex, race
(Caucasian), or in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she was removed
from her position as a letter carrier in Baytown, Texas, effective
December 10, 2004, for improper conduct/disrespect for customers.1
Complainant's request stated she is "appealing any and all things said
and written about me" and that she is seeking $995,000 (apparently
representing full or part of her retirement) and restoration of her
benefits. She also stated she is "suing for conspiracy, discrimination,
harassment, mental anguish, ruining my health and my livelihood."
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior 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, and it is
not merely an opportunity for a second appeal. Lopez v. Department of
the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). The Commission
finds that complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that, the request does not identify a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that
the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices or operation of the agency.
CONCLUSION
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. 0120082487 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 (P0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
December 10, 2009
Date
1 The record and witness statements described a major altercation
with residents of a housing complex on October 5, 2004, including that
complainant yelled at the residents, did not complete her delivery at
the complex, threw a license plate, and used profanity.
??
??
??
??
2
0520090669
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
3
0520090669