Kim Woods, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 29, 2005
05a60114 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 29, 2005)

05a60114

11-29-2005

Kim Woods, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area) Agency.


Kim Woods v. United States Postal Service

05A60114

November 29, 2005

.

Kim Woods,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

(Great Lakes Area)

Agency.

Request No. 05A60114

Appeal No. 01A54324

Agency No. 1J-607-0044-04

DENIAL

Kim Woods (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of the decision

in Kim Woods v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A54324

(September 15, 2005). Complainant alleges discrimination, in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.,

on the bases of sex (female) and disability (migraine headaches) when:

(1) on April 30, 2004, she learned that management canceled a job for

which she was told she would be selected; and (2) on May 15, 2004, she

was denied the position of Supervisor, Maintenance Operations, EAS-17,

O'Hare Airport Mail Center in Chicago, Illinois.

The alleged responsible official (RMO) affirmed that he was not aware

of complainant's alleged disability. In addition, RMO stated that

although the interview board did not recommend complainant, he chose to

interview her as a courtesy since complainant was an EAS-17 supervisor.

In addition, RMO states that complainant did not perform well during her

interview. Specifically, he noted that complainant showed no knowledge of

maintenance operations and was not familiar with the Airport Mail Center,

O'Hare facility. With respect to the re-posted position, RMO affirmed

that complainant failed to show up for her interview and that he was under

the belief that complainant was no longer interested in the position.

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).

After reconsidering 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.<1> We note that complainant restates previous arguments

and evidence previously consider. The preponderance of the evidence

does not establish pretext or discriminatory animus. The decision

in EEOC Appeal No. 01A54324 remains the Commission's final 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 (P0900)

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

November 29, 2005

__________________

Date

1 This decision assumes, without deciding,

that complainant is an individual with a disability within the meaning

of the Rehabilitation Act.