01982131
03-17-1999
Robin L. Reddick, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Allegheny/Mid-Atl Agency.
Robin L. Reddick v. United States Postal Service
01982131
March 17, 1999
Robin L. Reddick, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982131
) Agency Nos. 1D221111795 &
) 1K221104896
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Allegheny/Mid-Atl )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 13, 1998, appellant filed the instant appeal from the agency's
December 17, 1997 decision rejecting appellant's allegation that the
agency had failed to comply with an EEO settlement agreement.
II. ISSUE
Whether the agency correctly concluded that it had complied with the
terms of the settlement agreement.
III. BACKGROUND
On October 24, 1996, appellant and the agency entered into a settlement of
appellant's allegations of discrimination as asserted in formal complaint
# 1-D-221-1117-95.<1> The principal relief provided to appellant in
that agreement was the agency's undertaking that appellant "will not be
supervised at any time by Barry Stewart for a period of six months in
the performance of her duties."
More than one year later, on November 19, 1997, appellant submitted a
"Notice of Noncompliance" to the agency. Appellant's notice stated that
"the Agency has violated the settlement agreement in the above cited
cases<2> due to their numerous acts of harassment and retaliation."
The notice sets forth no specific acts of noncompliance with the
settlement agreement. No mention is made of Barry Stewart, the supervisor
referred to in the settlement agreement. The only person identified
is Sandi Daniels who is alleged to be involved "in the agency's current
acts of retaliation" (emphasis supplied)
On November 24, 1997, the agency wrote to appellant "to request additional
clarification regarding noncompliance matter(s)." In particular, the
letter asked appellant to clarify how, in her view, "the agency failed
to comply with the EEO settlement" and when appellant became aware of
the alleged noncompliance. Appellant did not respond.
IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We find that the agency correctly concluded that appellant's allegations
of noncompliance with the settlement agreement were unfounded.
Appellant's notice of noncompliance sets forth no facts to support a
claim of noncompliance and appellant failed to respond to the agency's
request for additional information. Similarly, in her appeal statement,
appellant provides no support for any finding of noncompliance. Indeed,
her appeal statement makes only the most tangential of references to
the settlement agreement. It contains no mention of the terms of the
agreement nor any discussion of how the agency may have breached the
agreement. Under these circumstances, we find that the appellant's
claim of noncompliance is unsubstantiated.<3>
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,
the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is
received by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and any supporting documentation must be submitted with your
request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests
for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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 that the Court
appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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.F.R.). The grant or denial of the request is within the
sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney 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:
March 17, 1999
____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 The case number is mistakenly listed as 1-D-221-1117-96 on the face
of the settlement agreement. Neither party has identified this error
as significant.
2 The caption of Appellant's notice refers to two agency case numbers:
"1D-221-1048-96 & 1D-221-1117-96." However, it appears that only
the second of these cases was resolved by the settlement agreement
in question. According to the final agency decision, a review of
appellant's record "in case #1D-221-1048-96 indicates an EEO settlement
agreement was never reached. Specifically, [appellant was] provided the
right to file a formal individual [complaint] on February 27, 1996, and
a formal complaint was never filed." Appellant does not dispute this.
3 In her appeal statement, appellant asserts that she has been subject to
harassment and retaliation as a result of her prior EEO activity. These
allegations do not relate to noncompliance with the settlement agreement
and should be processed as separate complaints of discrimination under �
1614.106 (individual complaints) rather than � 1614.504 (compliance with
settlement agreements). 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(c). Appellant is advised
that if she wishes to pursue, through the EEO process, the additional
allegations she raised for the first time on appeal, she shall initiate
contact with an EEO counselor within 15 days after she receives this
decision. The Commission advises the agency that if appellant seeks
EEO counseling regarding the new allegations within the above 15 day
period, the date appellant filed the appeal statement in which she
raised these allegations with the agency shall be deemed to be the date
of the initial EEO contact, unless she previously contacted a counselor
regarding these matters, in which case the earlier date would serve as
the EEO counselor contact date. Cf. Alexander J Qatsha v. Dept. of the
Navy, EEOC Request No. 05970201 (January 16, 1998)