05A10468
06-19-2001
Reba G. Randle-Harris, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.
Reba G. Randle-Harris v. United States Postal Service
05A10468
June 19, 2001
.
Reba G. Randle-Harris,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A10468
Appeal No. 01A04769
Agency No. 1-I-501-1013-96
Hearing No. 260-97-9125X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Reba
G. Randle-Harris v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04769
(March 6, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, 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 EEOC Appeal No. 01980714 (August 26, 1999), the Commission found
that complainant was discriminated against on the basis of disability
(sickle cell anemia) when, on April 14, 1996, she was terminated from
her temporary position for failure to follow a direct order and being
Absent Without Leave (AWOL). In accordance with the Commission's Order,
the agency thereafter issued a final decision awarding complainant
$15,000 in compensatory damages. Complainant timely appealed and the
prior appellate decision (i.e., EEOC Appeal No. 01A04769) affirmed the
agency's determination of the amount of compensatory damages, finding
that complainant failed to establish entitlement to the pecuniary damages
sought and that the evidence of record did not support a greater award
of non-pecuniary damages.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant again argues that the
amount of compensatory damages was not adequate based on her continuing
mental and physical damages. Complainant maintains that as a result
of the agency's discrimination, she has been stripped of her dignity,
pride and self-motivation. She asserts that she has been unable to
retain employment on an ongoing basis because of the residual effects
of the agency's actions. Therefore, she requests $125,000.00 in future
pecuniary damages.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. We find that
complainant failed to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or that
the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
We note that the prior decision determined that complainant failed to
establish the necessary nexus between the discrimination and medical
bills for services rendered in December 1996 and May 1999. Similarly,
we note that complainant fails to establish the necessary nexus with
respect to the medical documentation (regarding an abscess on March 11,
2001, dental work needed on April 2, 2001 and possible stable angina)
submitted with the instant request. The particulars of what relief may be
awarded, and what proof is necessary to obtain that relief, are set forth
in detail in EEOC Notice No. N 915.002, Compensatory and Punitive Damages
Available Under Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (July 14,
1992). Briefly stated, the complainant must submit evidence to show that
the agency's discriminatory conduct directly or proximately caused the
losses for which damages are sought. Id. at 11-12, 14; Rivera v. Dept. of
the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01934157 (July 22, 1994). The amount awarded
should reflect the extent to which the agency's discriminatory action
directly or proximately caused harm to the complainant and the extent to
which other factors may have played a part. EEOC Notice No. N 915.002 ,
at 11- 12. Based on the documentation submitted, a nexus has not been
established between the agency's discriminatory conduct and complainant's
current illnesses and job instability. Therefore, the decision in EEOC
Appeal No. 01A04769 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no
further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission
on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
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 (Z1199)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
June 19, 2001
__________________
Date