GENELIA M. GOATCHER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY.

Request Nos. 
05950557
 (01951246), 05950855 (01951960), 05950893 (01951247), 05960182 (01951593), 05960183 (01953332)
Appeal Nos. 01951250, 01960338, 01951594
Agency Nos. 1-G772-1169-94, 1108-94, 1203-94, 1264-94, 1251-94, 1207-94, 1170-94, 1115-95

October 25, 1996

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Between December 1994 and October 1995, the agency timely initiated one and appellant timely initiated four requests to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the separate decisions captioned Genelia Goatcher v. Postmaster General, United States Postal Service and three appeals from final agency decisions procedurally dismissing her complaints. In each of the complaints at issue herein, appellant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.

The regulations implementing the statutory language of Title VII are subject to strict compliance once an equal employment opportunity complaint has been accepted for investigation. See generally 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. The language of the regulations, however, does not deprive the Commission of its authority to protect its administrative process from abuse by either party. Quite the contrary, this Commission has the inherent power to control and prevent abuse of its orders or processes and its procedures. Buren v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05850299 (November 18, 1985); Hooks v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 01961306 (March 11, 1996). The procedures contained in its regulations provide the process by which allegations of discrimination are processed in the Federal Sector which are conducive to eliminating or preventing unlawful employment discrimination. The procedures set forth should not be misconstrued as substitutes for either inadequate or ineffective labor management relations or an alternative or substitute for labor management disputes.

On rare occasions, the Commission has applied abuse of process standards to particular complaints. Occasions in which application of the standards are appropriate must be rare, because of the strong policy in favor of preserving a complainant's EEO rights whenever possible. See generally Love v. Pulliam, Inc., 404 U.S. 522 (1972) and Wrenn v. EEOC, EEOC Appeal No. 01932105 (August 19, 1993). Abuse of process can be defined as a clear pattern of misuse of the process for ends other than that which it was designed to accomplish. See Buren, supra. The Commission has carefully reviewed the appeals and complaints at issue herein and it is the ultimate opinion of this Commission that appellant and others have pursued a scheme involving the misuse and misapplication of the administrative process towards in end other than that it was designed to accomplish. [FN1]

The Commission cannot continue to ignore the fact that appellant continues to raise frivolous issues citing similar or identical allegations. For example, two of appellant's present appeals involve complaints raising allegations concerning the agency's purported denial of appellant's access to equipment and storage for the processing of her EEO complaints; two involve complaints alleging she was improperly provided with EEO counseling through the mail; and two involve the agency's alleged failure to provide her with official time for the processing of her complaint. Appellant has also raised claims that her anonymity was compromised when a certified receipt from one of her cases was left in a cart in a hallway and when her supervisor allegedly directed a clerk to obtain a printout of official EEO time utilized by appellant, both of which have been raised by appellant in prior complaints. Finally, one complaint alleges that appellant was improperly denied overtime, but appellant also raises various allegations regarding the processing of her complaint.

The Commission also takes judicial notice of the 22 appeals and requests to reconsider closed since FY 1995. With very few exceptions, appellant's complaints and appeals have alleged dissatisfaction with the EEO process. For example, three of these complaints raised allegations concerning the agency's purported denial of access to sufficient equipment and storage; four alleged the denial of official time; five alleged inadequate EEO counseling; two alleged the agency did not permit her to remain anonymous; and two alleged that EEO time was being monitored. Even in recent appeals from complaints concerning conditions of employment, appellant also raised her routine allegation regarding the EEO process. In fact, appellant consistently attaches to her appeals a paper that has the same standard allegations and has been repeatedly copied, where she only writes the number of the particular complaint in question.

We find that appellant has blatantly overburdened the administrative system by filing these complaints. [FN2] What is presented is a concerted attempt by appellant to retaliate against the agency's in-house administrative machinery. The Commission cannot permit a party to utilize the EEO process to circumvent administrative processes; nor can the Commission permit individuals to overburden this system, which is designed to protect innocent individuals from discriminatory practices. Thus, this Commission declines to entertain the matters raised herein any further. Pending appeals raising similar allegations will be similarly dismissed. This decision is not to be construed as a holding that the mere filing of numerous complaints constitutes an abuse of process.

It should be noted that failure to administratively process the underlying allegations does not deprive, nor diminish, appellant's right(s) to file a civil action.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, appellant's requests to reconsider the decisions in EEOC Appeal Nos. 01951246, 01951247, 01951593, and 01953332 are hereby denied. It is our decision to reopen, on our own motion, our previous decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01951960 and affirm the agency's dismissal of appellant's complaint. We also affirm the agency's dismissal of appellant's complaints which are the subject of EEOC Appeal Nos. 01951250, 01951594, and 01960338.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

This decision of the Commission is final as to the complaints addressed in EEOC Request Nos. 05950557, 05950855, 05950893, 05960182, and 05960183, 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. 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. 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.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in Appeal Nos. 01951250, 01951594, and 01960338 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(c).

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. 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, 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). 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:

Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat

FN1. The Commission notes a similar pattern of filing numerous appeals and complaints raising similar or identical allegations by other agency employees. See Hooks, supra.

FN2. We note that in October 1995, appellant had 38 complaints pending at the agency level.