her workers' compensation claim, Since complainant's

complaint is a collateral attack on another forum's

proceeding, complainant fails to state a claim.

Therefore, the agency's decision to dismiss

complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED.

Nothing more need be added to confirm the legal
frivolousness of Brown's present action. Both it and the
Complaint are therefore dismissed with prejudice, with the

Application being denied and the Motion also being denied (in the

latter respect, on mootness grounds) .

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 31, 2002


\/ ;
A
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036

Peggy J. Brown,
Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, ©
, Agency. :

Appeal No. 01A20820
Agency No. 4-I-606-0282-01

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from an agency’s decision dated Octo
23, 2001, dismissing her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination. The Commiss
finds that the agency misdefined the issues raised by complainant; nevertheless, complainat
complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), although for a differ
reason than that advanced by the-agency.

The agency, in its decision, defined complainant's complaint as a claiming that-she v
discriminated against “when, on August 27, 2001, you learned that your OWCP case had not be
Closed on August 2, 1994 when you were issued a Letter of Decision - Separation/Disability da
October 2, 1997.” In its decision, the agency found that complainant raised the same claim t
is pending or has been decided by the agency or Commission in Agency Number 4-J-606-0265-
where complainant claimed that she was discriminated against. when she received a Letter
Decision - Separation/Disability. .

The Commission recognizes that complainant claims that she was discriminated against on 1
bases of race (unspecified), sex (female), age (D.O.B. August 21, 1952), and disability (ba
condition),. when, on August 7, 2001, complainant learned that her workers’ compensati
(OWCP) case had been closed on August 2, 1994. Complainant claims that his information v
incorrect, as complainant’s case was accepted on August 2, 1994, and the order of March 3, 19
was vacated. .

The Commission finds that complainant’s claim in the instant case differs from the claim rais
in Agency Number 4,J-606-0265-99; nevertheless, the Commission also finds that complain:
fails to state a claim, pursuant to 29 CFR. § 1614.107(a)(1).


On hag SO hie | the Ofhiee off Uakus
Loin pore SaT7ew 7 mga’ hut seme wredical AbCumpe rs

Te assist we sn my, ? il por Ab hig (ones a

hile revewing * las Crm OCD ofiscscev ect
at £ pad Dee serial aCy. ggi0s/, Yo hea poFel
seplee, Les pled that oy, oweP case had beere,
ose fag: a, 14 of This jn btm GEE wes 4 Ct pee I
and Was port Leet to me pti ST pecewecdl Fhe.

“ha. Cue? jn HOF 200! L hace Hoey F
Gas2 oy wy AsabjhIV hn

pres frow Th
pretin of Aisttimagtyo/?

ypu ©? MN prwsd Low Anew Gl/ ale J Yo x
maf OS was st AY, yn [4e geauted
Ku seen @ dees dvd 6 per eat ala

/ Leallte

4 2, [498 « EAE
os Aug, [96 vL WAS (sSucd q fe ther Hoc srs
2, wate mea Lace 04 MYfAS i Lity

me 3, 1947 fo Sat
naa was tooth te choc ef fA, /FI7

y ‘ of yntler he Ox ase
ple olf er the Cor fl My < se Was Cov,
GY An4 faa orden of Murekh. 3, (996

Aug % 19
wus paca ta -

fo Be. conpersa ted Jou ah Cie
le, L woe le Va fs Be

zr Wow ie
088 gad 44 wade whe

oto mmodibe wlth 4 press Teo nJ

/ post ett op Ss

nec sous bP a
wr thin my meted


Post Orrice OPERATIONS :
Cuicaco Oistricr

“
UNITED STATES
al POSTAL SERVICE

October 2, 1997

LETTER OF DECISION - SEPARATIONIDISABILITY

Peggy J. Brown : SSN: 329-46-8750
225 Arcadia Street = PL: 027
Park Forest, IL 60466-1435

You were issued a Notice of Proposed Separation dated July 30, 1997 for
failure to meet the requirements of your position.

it is noted that you did not provide any mitigating information regarding your .
medical condition, | have reviewed all the evidence of record and find that your
restrictions are permanent. It appears that you will never be able to perform the —
duties of your City Carrier position. Therefore, | find that the evidence supports

_ the charge as stated ig the notice issued to you on July 30, 1997.

You have failed to follow through on your available options to apply for-disability
retirement or request and successfully receive a reassignment to a position that
you can perform the duties, therefore, | have no choice but to remove you.

The Postal Service cannot continue to keep you in your City Carrier position
since you are unable to fulfill the duties of the position. Your inability to perform
your duties has resulted in the Postal Service paying overtime for someone else
to perform those duties. The Postal Service cannot operate effectively and
efficiently if employees are unable to meet the requirements of their positions.
Therefore, you will be removed from the Postal Service effective ciose of
business on October 10, 1997.

433 W. Hanson Steet

Creag, It, 60607-9992 > ;
942/983-8105 : ] 3 Y
. Gwe

Fax: 312/983-8107


U.S, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 8 .

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
230 S DEARBORN 8TH FLOOR

CHICAGO IL 60604

. Phone: (312) 353-8593

August 3, 1998 : .
File Number: . 100427373

Date of Injury: 08/25/1993

Employee: Peggy Brown

Peggy Brown . gh
225 Arcadia ‘ . NN)

Pack Foret IL 60466 . | . ww

Dear Ms, Brown:

Your claim for compensation benefits has been disallowed for the reason stated in the eaclosed copy of the
Notice of Decision. The decision was based on all evidence of record and on the assumption that all
available evidence has been submitted. If you disagree with the decision, you may follow any one of the
courses of action outlined on the attached appeal rights. .

Further medical treatment at OWCP expense is not authorized and prior authorization, if: any, is hereby
terminated.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: Notice of ‘Decision with Appeal Rights
. Notice of Proposed Termination dated June 16, 1998 ©

US POSTAL SERVICE
CHICAGO POST OFFICE
INJURY COMP SPECIALIST
433 W VAN BUREN
CHICAGO, IL 60607



© Minute Ordef Mim (06/97)
of United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Ni if Assigned Jud; j Sitting Judge if Oth
ior Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3677 DATE 5/31/2002
CASE Peggy Brown vs. John E. Potter
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:

() a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) a Answer brief to motion due___.._ Reply to answer brief due

(4) im Ruling/Hearingon__ ss setfor att.

(5) oO Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——set for at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on set for at
) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on at

(8) gq [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) (OGeneral Rule2]1 OOFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

go) of [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Nothing more need to be added to
confirm the legal frivolousness of Brown’s present action. Both it and the complaint are therefore
dismissed with prejudice, with the Application being denied and the Motion also being denied ( in the
latter respect, on mootness grounds).(4-1, 5-1)

ad) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Number

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. ibe: ni
umber of notices

VY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. JUN 3 = 2002

Notified counsel by telephone.

date docketed

Docketing to mail notices.

I
Mail AO 450 form, “ on crane Go | (
ates “
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
i 1312002

courtroom date mailed notice

SN deputy’s
initials

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



3 01420820

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION ($0900)

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 persom 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 (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. § 2000¢ 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:
CALS th LBL,

Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

FEB 2 5 2002
Date ,


VY

2 01420820

The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the EEO complaint process to lodge a
collateral attack on another forum’s proceeding. See Wills v. Department of Defense, EEOC
Request No. 05970596 (July 30, 1998); Kleinman v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No.
05940585 (September 22, 1994); Lingad v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930106
Qune 24, 1993). The proper forum for complainant to have raised her challenge to actions that
occurred during the processing of her-OW€P-claim was: with the Department of Labor. It is
inappropriate to now attempt to use the EEO process to collaterally attack actions which occurred
during the processing of her workers’ compensation claim. Since complainant’s complaint is a
collateral attack on another forum’s proceeding, complainant fails to state a claim. Therefore, the
agency’s decision to dismiss complainant’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the complainant or
the agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
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. .

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty
(20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration, See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614
(EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must 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 timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the
applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604, The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. 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).


a ould jefe i a pe I/, ood od
om penserory Yama pee far The Grben peal

0  bhibor of cmoborel SMES,

a vA Bayes) ~

757 OT (gal mn
poh

409-537-227


hearing (see attached Ex. 2) and a final August 3, 1998
disallowance (see attached Ex. 3).

What Brown seeks to make the subject of her current lawsuit
is a much later decision of the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (see attached Ex. 4) rejecting her
claim that she had been discriminated against in no fewer than
four respects--by reason of her race (which was not identified in
her claim), her sex, her age (she was then 49 years old) and her
claimed disability (stemming from her back condition) --by her
first being informed on August 7, 2001 that her workers
compensation case had been closed back in August 1994.?

It is more than understandable that EEOC found Brown's
position wholly groundless. As its decision (citations omitted)
stated:

The Commission has held that an employee cannot use the

EEO complaint process to lodge a collateral attack on

another forum's proceeding. The proper forum for

complainant to have raised her challenge to actions

that occurred during the processing of her OWCP claim

was with the Department of Labor. It is inappropriate

to now attempt to use the EEO process to collaterally
attack actions which occurred during the processing of

2 When phrased in that fashion, Brown's claim is difficult
to understand. As has earlier been indicated in the text of this
opinion, the initial notification as to the closing of her
workers compensation claim back in August 1994 was superseded by
a further review that apparently restored her to the compensation
rolls, so that no damages (to say nothing of any arguable
discrimination of any type) would seem to have been implicated by
her being provided in 2001 with any incorrect information in that
respect. But this opinion need not pause to probe further on
that subject.


less than $100 in her checking account. But it is unnecessary to
decide whether her situation qualifies in terms of the first
requirement of financial inadequacy, for the Complaint reflects a
fatal defect at the second--and substantive--hurdle.?

Brown's claim stems from her alleged mistreatment in
connection with her federal employment, which ended with her
termination back in August 1998. Brown had sustained an injury
at work (causing a back strain) five years earlier, on August 25,
1993, resulting in an award of partial disability workers
compensation benefits. Although some time later she claimed a
recurrence of the injury, that was initially rejected (after
internal review) by an August 2, 1994 ruling that closed her
workers compensation file. But then a further review on
September 1, 1994 authorized her to get an MRI of the lumbosacral
spine, to see whether she continued to sustain the partial
disability relating to the 1993 work injury.

No Complaint exhibits cover the next three years, although
the later exhibits certainly suggest that Brown had been
successful in getting back on the benefit rolls. Then on
October 2, 1997 she was sent a letter (attached Ex. 1) notifying
her of her termination effective October 10, 1997. Brown then

filed a claim for compensation benefits that resulted ina

+ Everything said in this opinion about Brown's claim is

drawn from the exhibits that she has attached to the Complaint.

2


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ny mare
EASTERN DIVISION Wess

PEGGY J. BROWN, JUN 3 - 2u02
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 3677

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General
United States Postal Service,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Peggy Brown (“Brown”) has tendered a self-prepared Complaint
of Employment Discrimination against Postmaster General John
Potter, using the form provided by this District Court's Clerk's
Office for that purpose. Brown has also accompanied her
Complaint with an Application To Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees (“Application”) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(“Motion”), again using Clerk-supplied forms. But because of the
patent deficiency in Brown's substantive claim, this sua sponte
memorandum opinion and order disposes of her action at its
inception.

For any litigant to obtain in forma pauperis status, he or
she must not only make an adequate showing of indigency but must
also advance at least one non-frivolous claim (in the sense
defined by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) and
further refined in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992))--in that respect, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324. Here the

Application reveals that Brown is employed at a modest wage, with


Sv

4 01A20820

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision was received within
five (S) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify that this decision was mailed to
complainant, complainant's representative (if applicable), and the agency on:

FEB 25 2007

KG

Equal Opportunity Assistant

Date