Karen M. Kim, Complainant,v.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 7, 2012
0520110627 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 7, 2012)

0520110627

02-07-2012

Karen M. Kim, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.




Karen M. Kim,

Complainant,

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Southeast Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110627

Appeal No. 0120111407

Agency No. 6L-000-0011-10

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Karen

M. Kim v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111407 (July 11, 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 determined that the Agency

improperly dismissed Complainant’s complaint, which alleged that the

Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and

in reprisal for EEO activity when her supervisor (S) and a coworker (CW)

yelled at her; S and CW made belittling comments about Complainant during

a teleconference; the Agency denied Complainant leave before her telework

day; and the Agency issued Complainant a poor evaluation. The Commission

also determined that Complainant’s claim that she was not selected

for positions in June 2007 and May 2008 was not a part of her hostile

work environment claim because Complainant did not specifically allege

that S or CW were responsible for the nonselections. Consequently, the

Commission reversed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s complaint

and remanded her complaint to the Agency for further processing, without

the inclusion of the nonselection claims.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant maintains that S “had

both direct and indirect involvement and influence on the outcome of

promotional selections,” which resulted in her nonselection in June

2007 and May 2008. However, even if Complainant maintains that S was

responsible for these nonselections, Complainant’s June 2007 and May

2008 nonselections were discrete acts that occurred more than 45 days

before she initiated EEO counselor contact on August 11, 2010. Hence,

Complainant’s nonselection claims are time-barred and not included in

her remanded hostile work environment claim because they were initiated

by untimely EEO counselor contact. See 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(2).1

Complainant also maintains that after she filed the instant complaint,

she was subjected to new acts of discrimination and harassment.

If Complainant wants to pursue these matters within the EEO process,

she should contact an EEO counselor.

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. 0120111407 remains

the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative

appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.

ORDER (E0610)

The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claims in accordance with

29 C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant

that it has received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar

days of the date this decision becomes final. The Agency shall issue

to Complainant a copy of the investigative file and also shall notify

Complainant of the appropriate rights within one hundred fifty (150)

calendar days of the date this decision becomes final, unless the matter

is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a

final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision

within sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.

A copy of the Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant and a

copy of the notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of

rights must be sent to the Compliance Officer as referenced below.

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

February 7, 2012

Date

1 The Supreme Court has held that a complainant alleging a hostile work

environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim

are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within

the filing period. See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,

122 S.Ct. 2061 (June 10, 2002). However, the Court further held that

“discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred,

even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.” Id.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0520110627

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110627