Request No. 0520120205
03-29-2012
Vanessa L. Davis, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Vanessa L. Davis,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120205
Appeal No. 0120112404
Agency No. 4F-900-0397-09
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Vanessa
L. Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112404 (December
2, 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 facts and procedural background are set forth in the previous decision
and are incorporated herein by reference. In the previous decision, the
Commission agreed with Complainant that the Agency violated the terms
of the parties’ October 8, 2009, settlement agreement. The previous
decision ordered the Agency to specifically implement the terms of the
settlement agreement by providing the mandated training to E1 and E2.1
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant, through her
representative, simply restates the same arguments set forth on appeal,
i.e., that only Complainant completed the training and that the Agency
should specifically enforce the settlement agreement. 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. We remind
Complainant that a “request for reconsideration is not a second
appeal to the Commission.” Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999),
at 9-17. A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate
that the previous decision 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. Here, we find no
evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120112404 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the
decision of the Commission on this request.
ORDER
Within thirty calendar days of this decision becoming final and to the
extent it has not already done so, the Agency shall comply with the
provisions of the October 8, 2009 settlement agreement, as referenced
above, with regard to E1 and E2.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0610)
Compliance with the Commission’s corrective action is mandatory.
The Agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30) calendar
days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall
be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013. The Agency’s report must contain supporting documentation, and
the Agency must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant. If the
Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 29 C.F.R. §�
�1614.503(a). The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action
to enforce compliance with the Commission’s order prior to or following
an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407,
1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g). Alternatively, the Complainant
has the right to file a civil action on the underlying complaint in
accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for
enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of
the complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0610)
This is a decision requiring the Agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date
you filed your complaint with the Agency, or filed your appeal with the
Commission. 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.
Filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
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
___3/29/12_______________
Date
1 The previous decision noted that the Agency, contrary to its claim, did
not provide evidence that E1 had completed the training. The previous
decision also rejected the Agency’s contention that because E2 no
longer functioned as a 204B supervisor the training was not required.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520120205
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120205