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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 10, 2018

0520180189 (E.E.O.C. May. 10, 2018)

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

Brant C.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180189

Appeal No. 0120171585

Agency No. 4V-362-0003-16

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120171585 (December 19, 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).

Complainant worked as a Mechanic in the Agency’s Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in
Scranton, Pennsylvania. On June 14, 2016, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement resolving an EEO claim. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that: 1)
Complainant was granted permission to refuse certain work assignments involving “frame work”;
2) the VMF manager would hold meetings with employees “each week” to “update them on
information pertinent to shop operations”; and 3) management and union representatives would
meet “when necessary or useful” to discuss “operational changes” and issue written reports on the
changes.

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.
0520180189

2

In a letter dated February 13, 2017, Complainant informed the Agency that it was in breach of the
settlement agreement in that: 1) he had been ordered to perform frame work; 2) meetings were not
held on a weekly basis; 3) the VMF manager has not met with the designated union representative;
and 4) the VMF manager did not return copies of Complainant’s leave slips. In its response to the
claim of breach, the Agency found, in a decision dated February 28, 2017, that it had not breached
the settlement agreement. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s decision, finding
that the Agency had substantially complied with the terms of the settlement agreement.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates an argument raised on appeal, but
unrelated to the claim of settlement breach, having to do with an annual leave request.2 He also
repeats his contention that the Agency has not held meetings as required by the settlement
agreement. Complainant’s position is not well taken. The previous decision correctly concluded
that the Agency complied with the requirements of the settlement agreement, holding meetings
when possible and as necessary to address operational changes. We find that Complainant’s
arguments do not 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. Accordingly, we find that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the
Commission should reconsider its appellate 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. 0120171585 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.

2 If he has not done so already, Complainant is advised to seek EEO counseling on his leave request
claim in order to initiate a new EEO complaint if he wishes to pursue this claim in the EEO process.
0520180189

3
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

May 10, 2018
Date