Alyce R.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 8, 20180520170572 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alyce R.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Request No. 0520170572 Appeal No. 0120160107 Hearing No. 430-2014-00394X Agency No. 4K-230-0042-14 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160107 (July 18, 2017). 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). In her underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that she was discriminated against on the bases of her disability (knees) and reprisal when in November-December 2013, her request for light duty was denied despite the availability of jobs she could have performed within her medical restrictions. 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. 0520170572 2 The record reflects that an investigation was conducted and Complainant subsequently requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding that Complainant failed to prove that discrimination occurred. In its final decision, the Agency implemented the AJ’s decision. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s determination that no discrimination occurred. The Commission found that Complainant’s claim of reprisal for union activity was not protected by Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. With respect to Complainant’s claim of disability discrimination, we stated that Complainant’s request for a light duty assignment constituted a request for reasonable accommodation. The Commission found that Complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there were vacancies during the relevant time period into which she could have been reassigned. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant states that she was hired as a Mail Processing Clerk and spent four months working at the Processing and Distribution Center, before being sent for Retail Sales and Service Training, but that the Agency did not offer a valid reason why she was not returned to the Processing and Distribution Center as an alternative to not scheduling her. Complainant claims there were several vacant retail positions at the Processing and Distribution Center. Complainant argues that she could have worked the retail window, with the accommodation of a rest stool or adjustable chair. Complainant contends that the Manager at another Agency facility violated the Rehabilitation Act when she was assigned to back office distribution work, and was not allowed to complete the forty hours of on-the-job retail training that would have made her fully qualified to operate the retail window. Complainant has submitted documentation indicating that several retail positions were available in April 2013. However, we observe that the alleged discrimination occurred on August 1, 2013, when Complainant’s request for light duty was denied. We find that Complainant has not presented any specific evidence in support of her position. 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. 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. 0120160107 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 0520170572 3 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. 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 March 8, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation