Elene K.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 21, 2017

0520170075 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 21, 2017)

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

Elene K.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520170075

Appeal No. 0120152228

Agency No. 4G-770-0330-09

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Elene K. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120152228 (Oct. 3, 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 November 2009, Complainant filed an EEO complaint (Agency No. 40-770-0330-09)
alleging, among other things, that she had been denied official time to meet with her EEO
representative. The Agency dismissed the complaint. Complainant appealed and, in
Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120101193 (June 21, 2010), the
Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of all claims except for Complainant’s official
time denial claim. The Commission remanded the official time denial claim for further inquiry
and issuance of a separate final decision. On October 21, 2010, the Agency issued a final
decision finding that Complainant failed to establish that she was denied reasonable official
time.

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.
0520170075

2
Complainant appealed and, in Elene K. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120152228
(Oct. 3, 2016), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding.2 The Commission determined
that Complainant failed to produce evidence demonstrating that she was improperly denied
official time to meet with her representative during the timeframe identified in her November
2009 EEO complaint. The Commission noted that Complainant’s appellate brief indicated that
she appeared to take issue with management’s delay in making the necessary arrangements for
her to meet with her representative. The Commission added that it had already ruled in an
earlier decision that some delay was reasonable because Complainant and her representative
worked in separate facilities which required coordination between two management teams and
consideration of work schedules and the operational needs of the two facilities. Further, even
assuming that the delay occurred as alleged, Complainant failed to show that she was harmed
as a result. Accordingly, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding that
Complainant was not denied reasonable official time as alleged.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates numerous arguments previously raised in her appeals. Complainant
contends that she has shown that she suffered harm from Agency management’s official time
denials and that she has been denied due process dating back to 2006.

The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request were
raised in her previous appeals and fully considered. 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 presented
any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she failed to show
that she was improperly denied reasonable official time. 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. 0120152228 remains
the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision
of the Commission on this request.

2 Complainant filed her appeal in November 2010; however, the Commission apparently did
not receive it. Complainant later submitted evidence showing that she timely filed an appeal,
and the Commission docketed it in June 2015. By the time the Commission requested the file,
the Agency no longer had the file of the inquiry into the official time claim. Nonetheless, the
Commission determined that the record was sufficient for a decision based upon Complainant’s
submission of the relevant documents.
0520170075

3
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 21, 2017
Date