0320100033
06-10-2010
Martricia Chapman, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.
Martricia Chapman,
Petitioner,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Petition No. 0320100033
MSPB No. AT3443100195I1
DECISION
On March 30, 2010, petitioner filed a petition with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) asking for review of a Final
Order issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning
her claim challenging the following actions:
1. a letter of warning dated May 26, 2009,
2. a seven day paper suspension dated June 26, 2009, and
3. a seven day no time off suspension dated September 18, 2009, which
was received by complainant on September 22, 2009.1
In a summary of a status conference, the MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ)
wrote, in relevant part, that the purpose of the conference was to make
sure he fully understood the contested issues, and that he double checked
with the parties to ensure he fully understood all contested issues for
the appeal. The AJ wrote that petitioner confirmed that she intended to
appeal the above issues. There was no indication in the AJ's summary
that complainant raised discrimination. A review of petitioner's MSPB
appeal form does not show she raised discrimination.
In an initial decision dated February 11, 2010, which became final on
March 18, 2010, the MSPB dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
It reasoned that generally, the MSPB only has jurisdiction to adjudicate
certain adverse actions including removals, suspensions for more than 14
days, reductions in pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less, and claims 1,
2 and 3 did not fall into any of these categories.
The MSPB's initial decision did not give appeal rights to the EEOC.
Nevertheless, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Commission.
EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over
mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes
determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303
et seq. Here, petitioner's appeal to the MSPB was not mixed because
she did not raise discrimination, and the MSPB made no determinations on
allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302(a)(2). Accordingly,
petitioner's petition to the EEOC is dismissed.
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0408)
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,
based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within
thirty (30) calendar days of 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
June 10, 2010
__________________
Date
1 The record in Chapman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120100324 (April 8, 2010) reflects that complainant contacted
an EEO counselor about the letter of warning in claim 1, and then
filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination when on September 22,
2009, she received a second seven day suspension. The Commission,
characterizing the complaint as being about the second matter, affirmed
the agency's dismissal thereof because petitioner failed to timely file
the complaint.
??
??
??
??
2
0320100033
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0320100033