Michelle Linton-Brinkley v. United States Postal Service 05A50819 09-14-05 . Michelle Linton-Brinkley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Request No. 05A50819 Appeal No. 01A51711 Agency No. 4K-200-0209-03 DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER On May 6, 2005, Michelle Linton-Brinkley (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Michelle Linton-Brinkley v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A51711 (April 27, 2005). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision where the party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b). The previous decision affirmed the agency's final decision that it did not discriminate against complainant when it denied her request for light duty. In her request, complainant contended that the previous decision did not consider the appellate brief, which she resubmitted, and she repeated her assertion that she demonstrated 'pregnancy discrimination' by the agency. In the first instance, we note that the previous decision stated that it reviewed the record "including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal." Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1978), discrimination based on pregnancy is a form of discrimination based on sex.<1> We find that the previous decision was correct. In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior decision, the requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b) is met. The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not merely a form of a second appeal. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). The Commission finds that the complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b), in that, the request does not identify a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. 01A51711 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on the decision of the Commission on this request. STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 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 _____09-14-05_____________ Date 1See Appendix to 29 C.F.R. Part 1604, Q and A on the PDA; see also EEOC Compliance Manual on Definition of the Term "Disability", No. 915.002 at 3 n. 10 (March 14, 1995) (Pregnancy is not a "disability" for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and allegations of employment discrimination based on pregnancy are covered by Title VII.).