Mary Cavanaugh, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 17, 2009
0520090627 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 17, 2009)

0520090627

09-17-2009

Mary Cavanaugh, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Mary Cavanaugh,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Request No. 0520090627

Appeal No. 0120091389

Agency No. 4G-752-0173-07

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Mary

Cavanaugh v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091389

(August 11, 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. See 29 C.F.R. �

1614.405(b).

In our prior decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's final order

fully implementing the AJ's finding of no discrimination. See id. While

complainant alleged that she was subjected to reprisal when, on December

12 and 19, 2006, she was denied a reasonable accommodation, the AJ

concluded that complainant was unable to work at any available position

without violating her medical limitations. See id. Complainant remained

"continuously disabled and unable to work", and the agency did not have

a sufficiently "safe" and "low key" position. See id. Consequently, the

agency's failure to provide complainant with a reasonable accommodation

was not found to be reprisal for her prior EEO activity.

In her request for reconsideration, complainant argues that she

was never offered an accommodation. According to complainant, she

suggested several "employment opportunities" to her supervisor, who

stated that the District Manager would never accommodate her because

of her prior EEO activity. The supervisor, contends complainant, was

afraid to testify because she too had previously filed an EEO complaint.

Complainant argues that "no one really did anything to help me."

The Commission notes that these arguments could have been raised on

appeal from the agency's final decision. We remind complainant that a

"request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission."

Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 110 for 29 C.F.R. Part

1614 (Nov. 9, 1999), Chapter 9.

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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120091389 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

September 17, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0520090627

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520090627