Iliana S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 28, 2018

0520180412 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 28, 2018)

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

Iliana S.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180412

Appeal No. 0120181178

Agency No. 1J-494-0011-18

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120181178 (April 27, 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).

In her underlying complaint, Complainant, who worked as a Custodian, claimed that the Agency
discriminated against her in reprisal for her husband’s prior EEO activity when on December 13,
2017, a coworker hollered at her on the workroom floor “Yea, your husband called in so I am the
only one.”

The Agency dismissed the claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds of failure
to state a claim.

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.
0520180412

2
The Agency stated that there is no evidence that Complainant was subjected to an adverse
employment action or denied any entitlement in relation to a term, condition, or privilege of her
employment as a result of the incident at issue. The Agency further stated that the relevant incident
was neither sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.

In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision. We stated that
Complainant has not alleged how she was harmed by this one-time incident.

In her request to reconsider, Complainant maintains that the matter at issue does not reflect a one-
time incident. Complainant states that the windshield on her Jeep Cherokee was broken and she
suspects the culprit was the female coworker who yelled at her on December 13, 2017.
Complainant states that this reprisal claim is connected to her husband’s claim of physical assault
against the female coworker who yelled at her on December 13, 2017.

We observe that Complainant has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence in support of her
position. 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. The record reflects that the only matter raised by Complainant in her formal
complaint was the hollering incident that occurred on December 13, 2017. Complainant has not
established how this incident caused her to suffer harm to a term, condition, or privilege of her
employment. Further, this incident by itself is neither sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute
a hostile work environment. We discern no persuasive argument or evidence in Complainant’s
request for reconsideration that satisfy the criteria for granting a request to reconsider.

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. 0120181178 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.
0520180412

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

September 28, 2018
Date