0520120334
12-21-2012
Kim M. Brantley, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.
Kim M. Brantley,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120334
Appeal No. 0120103567
Agency No. 1C-192-0006-05; 1C-192-0015-06
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Kim M. Brantley v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103567 (January 27, 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).
In our previous decision, we found that the Agency did not breach an August 7, 2009, settlement agreement entered into with Complainant. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part:
(1) Complainant will be paid $6,000 in attorney's fees;
(2) Complainant agreed that he has been paid the amount of back pay and interest which he is entitled as a result of the Commission's February 20, 2009, decision; and
(3) Complainant will be reimbursed $7,000 in compensatory damages.
We noted that Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to implement certain remedies ordered in Brantley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020 (Feb. 20, 2009). In Appeal No. 0720090020 the Commission found that the Agency had retaliated against Complainant. The Commission ordered the Agency to admit Complainant to the next Associate Supervisor Program (ASP) class; offer Complainant a supervisory position in one of his preferred facilities in the Philadelphia area; reimburse Complainant for any lost wages incurred as a result of his rejection from the August 2006 ASP class; train the responsible Agency officials regarding retaliation; and consider taking disciplinary action against the responsible Agency officials. We noted that the signed settlement agreement provided that Complainant would not challenge the Agency's compliance with EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020. We noted that, under the terms of the settlement agreement itself, and in keeping with established contract law, only those terms which have been reduced to writing as part of the settlement agreement are enforceable. We further noted that Complainant was represented by an attorney who also signed the agreement. We therefore found that the Agency did not breach the settlement agreement.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that he was under the impression that the settlement agreement was in accordance with the Commission's orders in EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020. Complainant contends that, by signing the agreement, he thought he was giving the Agency the opportunity to comply with our orders in EEOC Appeal No. 0720090020. Complainant contends that after he signed the agreement, the Agency paid him less than other supervisors with whom who he had graduated from the ASP class. Complainant contends that the Agency failed to make him whole with respect to his back pay and did not operate in good faith.
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.
We note that Complainant does not dispute that the Agency paid him a certain amount of back pay. Complainant's claim that he is entitled to additional back pay is rebutted by the settlement agreement, which was signed by him and his attorney. Complainant does not dispute that the Agency complied with the remaining terms of 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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120103567 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 21, 2012
Date
2
0520120334
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120334