Ardelia I.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2018

0520180269 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2018)

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

Ardelia I.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180269

Appeal No. 0120180521

Hearing No. 430-2016-00130X

Agency Nos. 1K-271-0031-15; 1K-271-0035-15

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Ardelia I. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120180521 (Jan. 26, 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 filed two formal EEO complaints alleging that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), color (light-skinned complexion), sex
(female), age, and disability when:

1. On June 4, 2015, Complainant’s work schedule was changed when she was instructed
to report to Tour 1; and

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.
0520180269

2

2. From June 6, 2015 through June 30, 2015, Complainant was bypassed for overtime.

The Agency consolidated the two complaints on September 25, 2015. Following an
investigation, Complainant requested a hearing. The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned
to the matter granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decision finding
that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency subsequently
issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.

Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission. In Ardelia I. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120180521 (Jan. 26, 2018), the Commission dismissed her appeal as untimely filed.
The Commission determined that Complainant acknowledged receiving the final order on
September 27, 2017; however, her appeal was postmarked November 17, 2017, beyond the 30-
day regulatory time limitation. The Commission found that Complainant failed to show that she
was so incapacitated as to have been unable to have filed a timely appeal. Thus, the Commission
concluded that Complainant failed to submit adequate justification to invoke waiver or equitable
tolling for filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal as untimely filed.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant, through her representative, submits a statement
from her medical provider noting several conditions for which Complainant has been treated. In
addition, Complainant reiterates that she was being assisted with the EEO process at the time by
her son, who is now currently in college. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the
Commission grant her request for reconsideration. In response, the Agency opposes
Complainant’s request for reconsideration and argues that Complainant has not shown that she
was incapacitated and unable to timely file her appeal. The Agency notes that Complainant
worked full-time between the issuance of its final order and the time her appeal was due to be
filed, and submitted her time and attendance records in support.

The Commission is sympathetic to Complainant’s situation; however, the Commission has
consistently held that an extension is warranted only where an individual is so incapacitated by
his or her condition that he or she is unable to meet the regulatory time limits. The Commission
previously found that Complainant failed to provide sufficiently persuasive evidence to waive
the regulatory filing limitation. 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. Although Complainant’s submitted medical
statement demonstrates that she received treatment for various conditions, the statement does not
establish that she was emotionally or physically incapacitated or otherwise unable to timely file
her appeal.

0520180269

3
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. 0120180521 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.

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

April 26, 2018
Date