Katrena L. Wright, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 10, 1999
05990429 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 10, 1999)

05990429

09-10-1999

Katrena L. Wright, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Katrena L. Wright v. United States Postal Service

05990429

September 10, 1999

Katrena L. Wright, )

Appellant, )

) Request No. 05990429

v. ) Appeal No. 01983564

) Agency No. 1-F-937-0005-97

William J. Henderson, )

Postmaster General, )

United States Postal Service, )

Agency. )

__________________________________)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On February 26, 1999, Katrena L. Wright (appellant) initiated a request

to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider

the decision in Wright v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01983564 (January 21,

1999). It cannot be determined when appellant received the previous

decision. EEOC Regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their

discretion, reconsider any previous decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The

party requesting reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence

which tends to establish one or more of the following three criteria:

new and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1);

the previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the previous decision is of such

exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential implications,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). Appellant's request is denied.

The record indicates that appellant contacted an EEO counselor in October

1997 complaining of discrimination based on race (Black), color (black),

sex (female), religion (Pentecostal), national origin (African/American)

and physical disability (back, neck, spine) when she was terminated from

her position in August 1985 for the physical inability to perform the

duties of her position. The agency dismissed the complaint for failure

to contact an EEO counselor in a timely manner, noting that an EEO poster

was on display at the time, and that under the regulations then in effect

(29 C.F.R. �1613), appellant had only thirty (30) days to contact the EEO

counselor. Appellant appealed to the Commission. The previous decision

affirmed the agency's decision without substantive comment.

In her request for reconsideration, appellant asserts that she was not

aware that she could file an EEO complaint at the time. The Commission

finds that appellant failed to act with due diligence in the pursuit

of her claim. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission

finds the doctrine of laches is applicable and that because appellant

waited twelve (12) years to bring her claim, she failed to act with due

diligence. Accordingly we find that the agency's dismissal of appellant's

complaint was appropriate. See e.g. Walker v. Dept of the Treasury, EEOC

Request No. 05960679 (December 12, 1997), O'Dell v. Dept. of Health and

Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05901130 (December 27, 1990).

After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds appellant's request

does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a), and it is the

decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request. The decision

in EEOC Appeal No. 01983564 remains the Commission's final decision

in this matter. There is no further right of administrative appeal from

a decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)

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.

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

Sept. 10, 1999

____________ ___________________________

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat