0520120357
11-30-2012
Tracey A. Jackson, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.
Tracey A. Jackson,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120357
Appeal No. 0120114063
Agency No. 4H-300-0015-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Tracey A. Jackson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120114063 (January 30, 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 March 15, 2011, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact, and on June 23, 2011, filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of sex, national origin, religion, color, and race when:
1. The Agency charged her Absent Without Leave (AWOL) after she changed her schedule for the week of November 6 through 12, 2010, and issued her a Letter of Warning;
2. On November 22, 2010, the Agency issued Complainant a Letter of Warning in lieu of a Seven-Day Suspension;
3. On December 18, 2011, the Acting Postmaster threatened Complainant;
4. The Agency did not pay Complainant for additional hours worked on December 24, 2010;
5. On January 14, 2011, Complainant was threatened with discipline and called "dumbass";
6. On January 14, 2011, the Agency removed Complainant from her detail assignment to the Atlanta, Georgia Post Office; and
7. On March 15, 2011, the Acting Postmaster told a group of people that she (Complainant) would not work in Atlanta again.
The Agency dismissed claims 1 through 6 on the basis that these claims were initiated by untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Agency dismissed claim 7 on the basis that it failed to state a claim. Our previous decision affirmed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's complaint.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates the allegations in her complaint and asserts that an Agency official subsequently engaged in acts of retaliation against her, including denying her an interview for a management position.
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. As our previous decision found, the Agency properly dismissed claims 1 through 6 on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact and claim 7 on the basis that it failed to state a claim. Moreover, our previous decision properly found that claim 7 was not part of any broader harassment claim that would render claims 1 through 6 timely. Finally, Complainant's claim that she has been subjected to subsequent acts of reprisal was not raised in the instant complaint, and it is inappropriate for Complainant to raise this matter for the first time in her request for reconsideration. Complainant is advised that she should initiate contact with an EEO Counselor if she wishes to pursue any new claims.
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. 0120114063 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
November 30, 2012
Date
2
0520120357
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120357