Alexia D.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 31, 20180520180520 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alexia D.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Request No. 0520180520 Appeal No. 0120180168 Hearing No. 560-2014-00398X Agency No. 4J630014313 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180168 (June 14, 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). On January 6, 2014 (and amended numerous times), Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment based on the following: A. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against based on race (African-American), sex (female), color (Black), and age (46) when, 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. 0520180520 2 1. on July 17, 2013, her co-worker (CW1) made an inappropriate racial comment during her conversation; B. Complainant also alleged that she was discriminated against based on race, sex, color, age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 2. On October 21, 2013, her supervisor emailed the Post Office Operations Manager (POOM) about her request for a supervisor position and the email was not answered, and on October 28 and November 18, 2013, the POOM did not talk to her about her request as she stated she would; 3. On November 19, 2013, and another date to be specified, CW1 became irate with her and her supervisor did nothing; 4. On January 21, 2014, her request for leave on January 24, 2014 was denied; 5. On a date to be specified, her supervisor informed her that she would be charged with Leave Without Pay for her absence on January 24, 2014; 6. On January 27, 2014, she requested annual leave to attend a funeral and was told it would only be approved if she called in; and 7. On February 5, 2014, she became aware that her supervisor had attempted to create a new Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) case for her instead of using her permanent case; C. Complainant also alleged that she was discriminated against based on race, sex, color, age, disability (depression), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 8. On April 1, 2014, she was denied a break; 9. On April 3, 2014, she was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview; and 10. On unspecified dates, she was denied training like the other Level 7 clerks; D. Complainant also alleges she was discriminated against based on race, sex, color, age, and disability when: 11. On April 6, 2015, Complainant was yelled at by CW1 and no action was taken by management; 12. On May 6, 2015, CW1 made a comment to a customer which was received as a derogatory racial comment and no action was taken by management; and 0520180520 3 13. On May 14, 2015, CW1 backed her truck into Complainant’s car. Following an investigation of the aforementioned allegations, the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned to the matter held a hearing and subsequently issued a decision finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate she was discriminated and retaliated against as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed and, in Alexia D. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120180168 (June 14, 2018), the Commission affirmed the final order. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously raised on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. EEO MD-110, at 9-18; 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. The Commission finds that some of the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration were largely raised in her previous appeal, fully considered, and rejected. The remaining arguments do not touch on her claims or address whether the Commission’s previous 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 presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s previous finding that she failed to show she was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment. 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. 0120180168 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. “Agency” or “department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. 0520180520 4 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 October 31, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation