0520120360
12-06-2012
Jeffrey Fleming, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Northeast Area), Agency.
Jeffrey Fleming,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120360
Appeal No. 0120120083
Agency No. 4B-020-0072-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jeffrey Fleming v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120083 (March 9, 2012). 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).
On July 28, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which he alleged that the Agency subjected him to disability discrimination when he received a letter from the Agency's Injury Compensation Office that stated that there was nothing it could do because the Department of Labor's Office of Worker's Compensation Program (OWCP) had denied Complainant's claim, and the matter was closed. Complainant also claimed that the Agency committed fraud in its response to his OWCP claim.
The Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint on the basis that it failed to state a claim and constituted a collateral attack on another proceeding. In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal and noted that an OWCP proceeding is the proper forum for Complainant to raise his allegations.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates his assertion that the Agency committed fraud when it altered an affidavit that it submitted to the OWCP. Complainant maintains that, according to the Agency handbook, the Injury Compensation Unit must contact an Agency law enforcement unit whenever it becomes aware of fraud regarding an OWCP claim. Complainant contends that our prior decision incorrectly stated that OWCP was the proper forum to address fraud regarding an OWCP claim because "[l]aw enforcement, not OWCP, is the proper agency to address OWCP fraud."
We note 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; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, 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 here. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant maintains that law enforcement, not the OWCP, is the proper forum to lodge his allegation that the Agency committed fraud in its response to his OWCP claim. At any rate, the salient point is that the EEO process is not the proper forum to process Complainant's fraud claim because this claim is beyond the purview of EEO regulations. Therefore, as our previous decision found, the Agency properly dismissed Complainant's complaint on the basis that it failed to state a claim.
Therefore, 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. 0120120083 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
December 6, 2012
Date
2
0520120360
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120360