0520110658
12-07-2011
Teresita B. Chase, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Teresita B. Chase,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110658
Appeal No. 0120100556
Hearing No. 480-2008-00051X
Agency No. 4F-926-0205-07
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in
Teresita B. Chase v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100556
(July 27, 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.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether Complainant met the criteria for
reconsideration by demonstrating that the appellate decision: (1)
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law;
or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
BACKGROUND
In the underlying case, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that
the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of national origin
(Filipino) when, on or about May 7, 2007, her bid assignment for a Sales
Service/Distribution Associate position was reposted, she was excluded
from in-section bidding for a Sales Service/Distribution Associate bid,
and she was subjected to installation-wide bidding.
The appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final order, which
adopted the AJ’s decision without a hearing finding no discrimination.
The appellate decision determined that the AJ’s decision without a
hearing was appropriate and that the preponderance of the record evidence
did not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law, and will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,
or operations of the Agency. First, Complainant asserted that the
appellate decision was “not based upon a complete understanding and
fair judgment of the facts.” Second, Complainant asserted that the
appellate decision’s findings were “a reiteration of the [Agency]’s
inaccurate and misleading statements.” Third, Complainant asserted
that the appellate decision did not properly consider her “contentions,
documentation, and arguments.”
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Upon review, we find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration does
not establish 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. Aside from her general assertions that the appellate
decision erred, Complainant did not argue with specificity about the
circumstances of the instant complaint. For example, Complainant did not
articulate any of the following: (a) what specific facts the appellate
decision misunderstood; (b) what specific inaccurate and misleading
statements the appellate decision relied on; or (c) what specific
contentions, documentation, and arguments the appellate decision failed
to consider. We emphasize that “[t]he burden is on the requesting
party to make a substantial showing that its request meets one of the
two prerequisites for a granting of reconsideration.” Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Ch. 9, § VII.B. (Nov. 9, 1999). We find that
Complainant has not met that burden.
CONCLUSION
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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120100556 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
___12/7/11_______________
Date
2
05-2011-0658
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110658