Bette P. Travis,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 16, 2018

0520180298 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2018)

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

Bette P. Travis,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180298

Appeal No. 0120180449

Agency No. 6E-000-0004-17

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180449 (Jan. 31, 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 July 1, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected
her to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on April 27, 2017, she became aware that
her medical records were improperly accessed and shared without her knowledge or approval.

The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a
claim. The Agency reasoned that an Agency Attorney requested Complainant’s medical records
because Complainant had an active District Court case, and the records were requested in
relation to that case, and were provided to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as part of the discovery
process in that case.

1 While it is the Commission’s present policy to randomly assign a pseudonym which will
replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's
website, in her request, Complainant has requested the use of her real name.
0520180298

2
Complainant appealed and in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180449 (Jan. 31, 2018), the Commission
affirmed the Agency’s dismissal. The Commission found that the release of the medical records
was so intertwined with Complainant’s District Court case, that the proper recourse was for
Complainant to raise her concerns within that process.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates arguments previously raised on appeal. Complainant contends that her
health records were obtained without her permission and that the Agency purposely provided
false information regarding discovery. 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.
Complainant has presented no evidence demonstrating that the Commission erred in finding that
Complainant was challenging actions related to a civil action being adjudicated in a U.S. District
Court and that the proper recourse was in that proceeding. As such, Complainant has not put
forth any persuasive arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration.

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. 0120180449 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.
0520180298

3
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 16, 2018
Date