Isaiah P.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 23, 2018

0520180024 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 23, 2018)

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

Isaiah P.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180024

Appeal No. 0120172212

Agency No. 4F-913-0040-17

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172212 (September 14, 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).

In his underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that he was discriminated against on the bases
of his religion (Jewish), age (69), and 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., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., when:

1. On January 10, 2001, Complainant was sent for a fitness for duty examination.

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.
0520180024

2

2. On or around April 30, 2002, Complainant was issued a Proposed Removal for which he
received a Letter of Decision on or around June 28, 2002.

3. Management refused to reinstate him in 2014 due to the Agency’s criminal activity (fraud
and collusion).

In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1)
on the grounds that the complaint stated the same claim that is pending before or has been
decided by the Agency or the Commission. The Agency determined that Complainant raised the
issue of his denied reinstatement in his prior complaint, Agency No. 4F-913-0032-15, which was
filed on March 23, 2015. The Agency noted that it dismissed the prior complaint on April 21,
2015, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Commission.

On appeal of the instant complaint, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the
complaint. The Commission found that the complaint failed to state a claim, noting that to the
extent that Complainant is alleging criminal activity in the form of denied reinstatement based on
fraud, it is beyond the scope of the Commission’s authority. The Commission stated that
Complainant failed to show that he suffered harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or
privilege of his employment for which there is a remedy under the laws that the Commission
enforces.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Agency colluded with
psychiatrists to have him declared unfit for duty. Complainant maintains that the Agency
Medical Director reviewed a private psychiatrist’s reports before they were issued to ensure that
the reports would favor the Agency. Complainant points out that seven of nine employees from
his facility that were sent for psychiatric examinations over a two-year period had filed EEO
complaints. Complainant maintains that the instant complaint reflects a new claim based on
new acts of discrimination that occurred in 2016 in contrast to the denied reinstatement from the
prior complaint that occurred in 2014.

We observe that Complainant has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence in support of his
position. It is evident that Complainant is claiming that he was denied reinstatement based on
unlawful criminal activity in the form of fraud. This claim alleging criminal activity is beyond
the scope of the Commission’s authority. 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.

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. 0120172212 remains the
0520180024

3
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. 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

February 23, 2018
Date