0520110568
12-16-2011
Michael C. Forsch, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Michael C. Forsch,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110568
Appeal No. 0120111322
Agency No. 1F-927-0078-10
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Michael
C. Forsch v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111322 (May
23, 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).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of claims
1, 2(b), 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. Specifically, regarding claims 1 and 4, we
found that allegations pertaining to workers’ compensation benefits
are within the jurisdiction of the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs (OWCP) and not the EEOC. We also found that claims 3 and 6 were
not within the EEOC’s jurisdiction. We further found that Complainant
failed to timely contact an EEO Counselor with respect to claims 2(b) and
5. We also found that the Agency properly dismissed claim 8 for alleging
dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed case. However,
we reversed the Agency’s dismissal of claims 2(a) and 7. With respect to
claim 2(a), we found that Complainant’s denial of reasonable allegation
was timely because the EEO Counselor improperly persuaded Complainant
to withdrawal his June 15, 2009, and January 11, 2010, informal EEO
complaints. We also found that the Agency had an ongoing obligation to
provide a reasonable accommodation. Regarding claim 7, we found that
the Agency was the entity that made the determination on when to remove
Complainant’s spouse from Complainant’s health insurance. Therefore,
we found that claim 7 stated a claim and was not a collateral attack on
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant, in pertinent part,
contends that, the Agency improperly dismissed claims 1, 2b, and
6. Regarding claim 1, Complainant contends that he was denied access to
the OWCP processes based on the Agency’s conduct. Complainant contends
that his supervisor did not provide him forms to file a claim for
workers’ compensation benefits. As for claim 2b, Complainant contends
that he had previously mentioned claim 2b to the EEO Counselor, which
was contained in his previous January 11, 2010, informal complaint. With
respect to claim 6, Complainant contends that the Agency knowingly made
false statements in earning certification documents and filed false
reports of wages to OPM to reduce his disability payments.
As for claims 1 and 6, we have consistently held that any issues that
arise in the context of the processing of these claims should be addressed
by the OWCP and OPM respectively. Regarding claim 2b, notwithstanding
Complainant’s contention to the contrary, as noted in our previous
decision, we can find no evidence that Complainant raised claim 2b in
his previous informal complaint or to the EEO counselor before September
30, 2010. We remind Complainant that a request for reconsideration is
not a second form of appeal. See Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC
Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007); EEO Management Directive for
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, §VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 0120111322 remains the Commission's decision.
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. 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
December 16, 2011
Date
2
0520110538
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110568