Deborah J. Anderson v. United States Postal Service 04A10043 February 12, 2003 . Deborah J. Anderson, Petitioner, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Petition No. 04A10043 Request No. 05990655 Appeal No. 01971483 Agency No. 1G-784-1013-94 Hearing No. 360-96-8260X DECISION ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT On May 24, 2001, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) docketed a petition for enforcement to examine the enforcement of an order set forth in Deborah J. Anderson v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05990655 (July 7, 2000). This petition for enforcement is accepted by the Commission pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503. In the above-referenced decision, the Commission found that the agency discriminated against petitioner on the basis of her sex (female) when she was harassed by her supervisor in connection with her pregnancy. The Commission ordered the agency to provide specific relief to petitioner, stating in relevant part: The agency shall tender back pay and benefits retroactive to February 10, 1994, and ending on the expiration date of [petitioner's] appointment as a transitional employee, offset by the amount of workers' compensation wage-replacement benefits complainant has received .... If [petitioner's] appointment would have been renewed absent the discrimination, she is entitled to back pay and benefits for the period of renewal as well. The matter was assigned to a Compliance Officer and docketed as Compliance No. 06A01558 on July 10, 2000. On May 9, 2001, petitioner submitted the petition for enforcement at issue. Petitioner contends that the agency has failed to provide the full measure of back pay and benefits to which she is entitled. More specifically, petitioner states that while the agency has tendered back pay and benefits for the period February 10, 1994 through July 31, 1997, she remains an employee of the agency to date, and that her entitlement to back pay and benefits therefore continues. Petitioner argues that because she is still in receipt of benefits from OWCP, and because she continues to submit a monthly duty-status report to the agency, she is still an employee of the agency and should continue to receive back pay and benefits pursuant to the Commission's order in EEOC Request No. 05990655. The agency previously submitted a report of compliance providing the following information, including computer reports generated March 23, 2001: Petitioner, while continuing in receipt of workers' compensation benefits from the Office of Workers' Compensation Benefits (OWCP), remained employed by the agency on a series of temporary appointments expiring July 31, 1994; July 31, 1995; July 31, 1996; and July 31, 1997, respectively. The agency calculated the amount of back pay and benefits owing to petitioner from February 10, 1994 through July 31, 1997, and tendered payment.<1> The Commission notes that where a Federal employee sustains an on-the-job injury which results in the payment of workers' compensation benefits by OWCP, the employee's entitlement to such benefits does not terminate upon separation from employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.500 (benefits are payable so long as the effects of the work-related injury continue) and § 10.503 (specified circumstances under which benefits may be terminated do not include separation). Stated differently, the fact that petitioner continues to receive workers' compensation benefits through OWCP does not constitute proof that she remains an employee of the agency. The agency has submitted records sufficient to establish that petitioner's last appointment as an agency employee expired July 31, 1997, and that it has tendered back pay and benefits through that date. There is no evidence that petitioner was or should have been reappointed to the agency after July 31, 1997. Petitioner argues that she is required to submit a duty-status report to the agency on a monthly basis, thereby proving that she is still an employee of the agency. The Commission finds this argument to be without merit. Because the agency ultimately is responsible for the payment of petitioner's workers' compensation benefits, see 5 U.S.C. § 8147, it is in the agency's interest to monitor whether petitioner has recovered from her work-related injury. Based upon the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the agency has fully complied with the order in EEOC Request No. 05990655. The petitioner for enforcement therefore is DENIED. COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900) 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 (Z1199) 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). 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: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations February 12, 2003 __________________ Date 1It is noted that petitioner does not contest the accuracy of the agency's calculation of back pay and benefits for this period, only the period of time itself.