Christopher E.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 15, 2016

0520160459 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 15, 2016)

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

Christopher E.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520160459

Appeal No. 0120161493

Agency No. 4G-320-0051-16

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No.
0120161493 (June 23, 2016). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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 his underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that he was discriminated against in reprisal
for his prior EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when he was issued a decision letter upholding his proposed removal,
effective September 13, 2008.

In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to EEOC Regulation 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2) on the grounds that Complainant failed to file the complaint in a
timely manner, and EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for raising the same claim
in a prior complaint. The Agency stated that Complainant initiated EEO counseling on January
6, 2016. The Agency determined that Complainant’s EEO contact was over seven years after

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.
0520160459

2
his removal. The Agency further determined that Complainant pursued his removal through
the EEO process in his prior complaint, Agency No. 4H-310-0008-10.

On appeal, the Commission addressed Complainant’s arguments and found that the Agency
properly dismissed the complaint. We observed that Complainant argued that his untimely
EEO contact should be excused due to misconduct on the part of Agency officials. We were
not persuaded by Complainant’s contentions and found that he did not provide adequate
justification for a seven-year delay in his EEO Counselor contact.

In his request to reconsider, Complainant contends that our prior decision should be reversed
because any EEO contact would have been untimely by the time the grievance decision was
issued upholding his removal. The Agency did not file any brief or statement in opposition to
Complainant’s request for reconsideration.

We find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration fails to show that our previous decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or would have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices or operations of the Agency. We note that a “request for
reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission.” E.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of
Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007); EEO Management Directive
for Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, §VII.A. (Aug. 5, 2015). We find that Complainant’s
argument that his grievance prevented him from making timely EEO contact is unavailing, and
that Complainant noted that he also filed an appeal regarding his removal with the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

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. 0120161493 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.

0520160459

3
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

December 15, 2016
Date