0520110507
11-21-2011
Kimberly M. Stovall-Harris, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Kimberly M. Stovall-Harris,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110507
Appeal No. 0120093327
Hearing No. 440-2008-00162X
Agency No. 4J-604-0142-07
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Kimberly
M. Stovall-Harris v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120093327
(May 19, 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).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency’s finding that it had not
discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability when she was
removed from federal employment with the Agency and when it allegedly
did not provide her with a reasonable accommodation. It found that
Complainant had not shown the Agency’s reasons for her removal to be
pretext for discrimination, and had not shown that the Agency had failed
to provide her with a reasonable accommodation.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the previous
decision should be reversed because the Agency had not followed the
procedures when an employee calls in to take leave, and that she
had properly called in and would have brought in documentation upon
her return. The Agency submitted a statement in which it urged the
Commission to affirm the previous decision.
We find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration should be denied.
Complainant advanced the same arguments in her request for reconsideration
as were advanced, and considered, in the initial appeal. We note that a
request for reconsideration is not a second form of appeal. E.g., Lopez
v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007).
Complainant does not otherwise show that the previous decision was clearly
erroneous. Although Complainant argued that the Agency had not followed
the leave procedures by allowing her to submit documentation upon her
return to work, she did not address the evidence in the record which
showed that during her extended absence the Agency had twice requested
documentation on the reasons for her absence. She had not in any way
responded to these requests. We find that Complainant did not show the
Agency’s reasons for her removal to be pretext, and did not show that
the previous decision erred in its conclusions.
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. 0120093327 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 21, 2011
Date
2
0520110507
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110507