Akiko L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 30, 2019

2019002666 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 30, 2019)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Akiko L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.

Request No. 2019002666

Appeal No. 0120172924

Hearing No. 461-2017-00061X

Agency No. 4G700004816

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Akiko L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120172924 (Nov. 20, 2018). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), 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(c).

Complainant, an EAS-18 Postmaster at the Agency's Post Office in Abita Springs, Louisiana, filed
an EEO complaint in which she alleged that she was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work
environment based on race (Caucasian), sex (female), color (White), disability (asthma and
arthritis), age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) beginning in 2011 through
February 2016, she was subjected to a pattern of ongoing harassment which created a hostile work

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
2019002666

2
environment; and (2) in January 2016, she was required to have an F4 audit in order to receive an
additional clerk and she was given an unfair evaluation in the F4 audit.

The Agency completed its investigation and notified Complainant of her right to request a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Although Complainant requested a hearing, she
subsequently withdrew her request. The Agency thereupon issued a final decision finding that
Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment.

In affirming the Agency’s findings and conclusions in our appellate decision, we found the
incidents that Complainant raised relating to yelling, berating, belittling, and being subjected to
negative comments in the audit were insufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the
conditions of her work environment. We found that these incidents could have been described as
relating to disagreements with managerial decisions and processes, including reassignments,
personnel changes, the assignment of duties, and the audit process. Ultimately, we concluded that
Complainant failed to establish that discriminatory or retaliatory animus played a role any of the
incidents she described in her complaint. We also found that the audit was a standard operating
procedure, that the results of the audit indicated a need for an additional clerk, and that
Complainant’s request for the additional clerk had been approved.

The Commission emphasizes 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), at 9-18 (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No.
0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate
that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant
has not done so here. She has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the
existence of either reconsideration criterion. She merely offers a different interpretation of the
facts comprising the evidentiary record, rearguing her appeal on the merits and raising the same
contentions that we rejected in our previous decision.

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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to
DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172924 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.
2019002666

3
“Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or
department in which you work.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

August 30, 2019
Date