0520110384
05-27-2011
Ok H. Park, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (New York Metro Area), Agency.
Ok H. Park,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(New York Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110384
Appeal No. 0120110098
Agency No. 1A-126-0033-09
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Ok
H. Park v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120110098 (Mar. 7, 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 EEOC Administrative Judge’s decision
without a hearing, which found that the Agency did not discriminate
against Complainant on the basis of race (Pacific Asian) when it issued
Complainant a letter of demand for repayment on July 30, 2009. The
previous decision found that the Agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for demanding repayment in that the Agency
accidentally overpaid Complainant in 1996 and prematurely “bumping”
her to a Step C level in 1988, and was now demanding a return of the
unearned money. The previous decision found that Complainant could not
sufficiently demonstrate that the Agency’s demands were motivated by
her race, rather than administrative incompetence.
In her request to reconsider, Complainant calls attention to a new
development with respect to the letter of demand. She attaches a
document, showing that the parties reached a settlement agreement through
the grievance process on September 20, 2010 with respect to the 2009
letter of demand. The agreement provides that the letter of demand in
the amount of $2593.05 shall be rescinded and expunged from her record
because (1) the letter of demand was issued for a debt in excess of 14
years, and (2) management sat on its rights for an extended period.
Notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, Complainant maintains in
her request to reconsider that the Agency still obtained the repayment
amount through other means, mainly by subtracting that amount from her
final paycheck upon her retirement from the Agency.
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. Complainant has not identified that the previous decision
clearly erred in interpreting a material fact or law. The decision in
EEOC Appeal No. 0120110098 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
__5/27/11________________
Date
2
0520110384
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110384