Colene R.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 4, 20180520180593 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 4, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Colene R.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Request No. 0520180593 Appeal No. 0120170080 Agency No. 1C-191-0001-16 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170080 (July 12, 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Mail Processing Clerk at the Philadelphia Processing and Distribution Center (PDC). Believing that her supervisor was subjecting her to a hostile work environment, based on sex, Complainant filed an EEO complaint. Following an investigation, Complainant did not request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, but instead asked that the Agency issue a decision. The Agency decision found no discrimination. Complainant appealed the Agency’s decision to the Commission. See Complainant v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170080 (July 12, 2018). 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. 0520180593 2 In our prior decision, we concluded that Complainant failed to show a connection between the alleged harassment and her sex. Her supervisor’s account was directly at odds with Complainant’s version of the events. See id. The only witness observed Complainant and her supervisor standing close together, but did not state she saw the supervisor bump Complainant. See id. We noted that since Complainant did not request a hearing, the record did not include a credibility determination by an AJ. See id. The Agency’s decision finding no discrimination was affirmed. See id. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the supervisor’s alleged actions violated various Agency policies, including the Zero Tolerance policy and the Administrative Support Manual. Additionally, she argues that the incidents rendered her an “aggrieved employee” and are sufficiently severe to create an abusive work environment. “There is a causal connection between [supervisor’s] challenged conduct . . . and the harm that I have suffered”, asserts Complainant. As an initial matter, we note that Complainant’s contentions relate to whether a complaint states a claim of discrimination, that is, a harm that is sufficient to render one “aggrieved” to avoid dismissal pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(1)2. The instant formal complaint, however, was not dismissed. The matter was investigated and a decision on the merits was issued. The Agency was found not to have discriminated against because Complainant was unable to prove that the alleged incidents occurred as she alleged and because she failed to show that the events were motivated by discriminatory animus for her protected basis (i.e. sex). 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) (rev. Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). We find that Complainant is simply attempting to raise arguments and evidence which were previously, or could have been, raised on appeal. 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. 0120170080 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. 2 The regulation set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that an agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim 0520180593 3 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 December 4, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation