0520110663
02-16-2012
Jaime J. Meave, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Jaime J. Meave,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110663
Appeal No. 0120101335
Hearing No. 4G-770-0152-09
Agency No. 4G-770-0152-09
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jaime
J. Meave v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120101335 (July 28, 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).
In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed an EEOC Administrative
Judge’s (AJ) finding that Complainant was not subjected to disability
discrimination when he received a Letter of Warning regarding his medical
information and when he was excessed from his position Houston, Texas
and assigned to a position in El Paso, Texas.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the Agency
offered him a position in El Paso, Texas that was not a limited-duty
position after he was “excessed” from his position in Houston, Texas.
However, Complainant did not identify any duty of his El Paso position
that violated his medical restrictions. In fact, in Complainant’s
Objection to the Motion for a Decision without a Hearing, Complainant
stated that his El Paso assignment consisted of casing for eight hours
per day, which is the same assignment he contended he could perform
within his restrictions in Houston. Complainant further contends that
he failed to provide the Agency with requested medical documentation in a
timely manner because of a delay in receiving the request, and his medical
provider could not see him until March 16, 2009. While Complainant has
argued that there were extenuating circumstances that delayed him from
timely submitting the requested documentation to the Agency, he has not
provided any evidence from which it could be reasonably concluded that
the issuance of the Letter of Warning for failure to follow instructions
was motivated by unlawful discrimination. Thus, we find that Complainant
failed to show that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of fact or law.
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; e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Request
No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). 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. Complainant has not done so.
Consequently, 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. 0120101335 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
February 16, 2012
Date
2
0520110663
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110663