01a35127
12-30-2003
Sharon L. Dean, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sharon L. Dean v. United States Postal Service
01A35127
December 30, 2003
.
Sharon L. Dean<1>,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A35127
Agency No. 1B-145-0044-03
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from the final
agency decision dated August 7, 2003, dismissing her complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
In her complaint, filed on July 22, 2003, complainant alleged that she
was subjected to harassment on the basis of race when:
(1) management delayed the processing of her claim for workers'
compensation through the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
(OWCP); and
(2) management submitted false, misleading, and libelous statements to
OWCP in an attempt to deny her compensation benefits.
The agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Specifically, the agency found that complainant's claims constituted a
collateral attack on the Department of Labor's processing of complainant's
OWCP claim.
On appeal, complainant argues that the agency did not frame her complaint
correctly. Complainant further argues that her claims do not constitute
a collateral attack on the OWCP. Furthermore, complainant states that
her claims are "against the Agency for its negligent delay in fulfilling
obligations outlined in the United States Postal Service's Employee and
Labor Relations Manual, and regulations against providing false statement
to OWCP, also governed by the ELM."
The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in
relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to
state a claim. An agency shall accept a complaint from any aggrieved
employee or applicant for employment who believes that he or she
has been discriminated against by that agency because of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 29 C.F.R. ��
1614.103, .106(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has
long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm
or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment
for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
The Commission first determines that, contrary to complainant's
assertions, the agency properly identified the matters raised in
the instant complaint. The record reveals that complainant alleged
that the Plant Manager purportedly delayed the processing of her claim
for workers' compensation and submitted false, misleading and libelous
statements to the OWCP. The Commission has held that an employee cannot
use the EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on another
forum's proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC Request
No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Request No. 05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. United States
Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106 (June 25, 1993). The proper
forum for complainant to have raised her challenge to actions that
occurred during the processing of her OWCP claim was with the Department
of Labor. It is inappropriate to now attempt to use the EEO process to
collaterally attack actions which occurred during the processing of her
workers' compensation claim. Since complainant's claim is a collateral
attack on another forum's proceeding, complainant fails to state a claim.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision to dismiss the complaint is
AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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
December 30, 2003
__________________
Date
1The record reveals that during the relevant
period complainant changed her last name from "Berritella" to "Dean."