Pauline Horvath, Appellant,v.John H. Dalton, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 23, 1998
05960780 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 23, 1998)

05960780

10-23-1998

Pauline Horvath, Appellant, v. John H. Dalton, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Pauline Horvath v. Department of the Navy

05960780

October 23, 1998

Pauline Horvath, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Request No. 05960780

) Appeal No. 01953361

John H. Dalton, ) Agency No. 95-65885-001

Secretary, )

Department of the Navy, )

Agency. )

______________________________________)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 13, 1996, Pauline Horvath (appellant), timely initiated

a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to

reconsider the decision in Horvath v. Department of Navy, EEOC Appeal

No. 01953361 (July 8, 1996), received July 16, 1996. EEOC Regulations

provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider

any previous Commission decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party

requesting reconsideration must submit written argument or evidence

which tends to establish one or more of the following three criteria:

new and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1);

the previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the previous decision is of such

exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential implications,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).

The record reveals that appellant filed a claim with the Department of

Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP). The agency then

received a request from OWCP to provide comments from a knowledgeable

supervisor about appellant's claims. Appellant's second-level supervisor

responded with comments refuting appellant's need for sick leave use.

Specifically, the supervisor stated that despite appellant's claim that

she had to be on leave because she was denied use of her wheelchair,

the supervisor had never known appellant to use a wheelchair. The

supervisor also generally indicated that while appellant claimed that

her physical limitations were not accommodated, she had not provided

medical documentation to support these restrictions.

Appellant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging race and physical

disability discrimination, and reprisal because of her second-level

supervisor's comments in the April 1994 letter to OWCP that were intended

to encourage the disallowance of her OWCP claim. The agency dismissed

appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, appellant

asserted that the remarks to OWCP themselves constituted harassment.

She also asserted that she had been subjected to ongoing and continuous

harassment due to unspecified acts by the second-level supervisor, which

have caused her continual stress. In its response to appellant's appeal,

the agency contended that there was no attempt to controvert appellant's

claim, but rather it submitted comments in response to OWCP's request.

The agency asserted that appellant could not claim that she was subjected

to a hostile environment because she had voluntarily retired prior to

the submission of the April 1994 remarks.

The previous decision affirmed the agency's finding. The previous

decision noted appellant's allegation that her supervisor made "untrue and

offensive" statements about her to OWCP with the purpose of influencing

OWCP to disallow her claim. The previous decision determined that while

appellant complained that the statements were harassment, an isolated

comment or remark, unaccompanied by concrete action is not direct and

personal deprivation sufficient to render an individual aggrieved.

In her request for reconsideration, appellant contends that the remarks

to OWCP were not isolated incidents. Appellant asserts that she spoke

with the supervisor about accommodation. Appellant argues and provides

exhibits to show that the supervisor had no credibility when stating

that appellant never used a wheelchair.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that

appellant's request for reconsideration meets none of the criteria of

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c). It is therefore the decision of the Commission

to DENY the appellant's request.

The Commission has held that an EEO complaint alleging discrimination in

connection with a workers' compensation claim before OWCP states a claim

within the Commission's jurisdiction only under limited circumstances.

Schultz v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950173 (September

26, 1996); Hogan v. Department of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05940407

(September 24, 1994). In particular, a complainant may not use the

EEO process to launch a collateral attack on the workers' compensation

process. Story v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05960314 (October

18, 1996). The Commission has recognized that the agency has the right

to represent its position and interest in the OWCP Forum, and will not

review decisions which would require it to judge the merits of a workers'

compensation claim. Hogan, EEOC Request No. 05940407.

Where a complainant alleges that the agency discriminated in the

processing of a workers' compensation claim -- for example, by failing

to submit required paperwork -- then the complaint states an EEO claim.

Foster v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01951370 (May 8, 1995),

req. to recon. den., EEOC Request No. 05950693 (May 16, 1996). However,

where a complainant alleges that the agency discriminated in a manner

pertaining to the merits of the workers' compensation claim -- for

example, by submitting paperwork containing allegedly false information

-- then the complaint does not state an EEO claim. Id.; Schultz, EEOC

Request No. 05950173.

Here, although appellant characterizes her allegation as one of

"harassment," the gist of her allegation is that in the due course

of processing her workers' compensation claim, the agency made false

statements to OWCP going to the merits of that claim. Accordingly,

the previous decision properly affirmed the FAD dismissing appellant's

complaint for failure to state an EEO claim. Cf. Lau v. National

Credit Union Administration, EEOC Request No. 05950037 (March 18, 196)

(complaint alleging that agency improperly released accurate, but

privileged, information to OWCP states an EEO claim).

CONCLUSION

After a review of appellant's request to reconsider, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that appellant's

request meets none of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and

is DENIED. The decision in Appeal No. 01953361 remains the final

decision of the Commission in this matter. There is no further right

of administrative appeal from the decision of the Commission on this

request for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)

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.

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from

the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil

action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY

(30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or

to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the

jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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:

Oct. 23, 1998

__________________ ______________________

DATE Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat