Lavonia M.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 18, 2018

0520180156 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 18, 2018)

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

Lavonia M.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180156

Appeal No. 0120152459

Agency No. 4K-280-0115-14

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152459 (November 21, 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 the underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on
the bases of disability (shoulder and stress) and reprisal (prior protected EEO activity) when: (1)
on July 25, 2014, she was sent home; informed that she had to provide documentation indicating
that she could return to duty without harming herself or others; and charged with leave without
pay (L WOP); and (2) on August 7, 2014, she was spoken to in a loud tone of voice. The
Agency issued a decision finding that it had not discriminated against Complainant.

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.
0520180156

2
Our previous decision concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported the Agency’s
request for medical documentation prior to permitting Complainant’s return to work based upon
Complainant’s assertion that her prior absence was due to “on the job stress,” and behavior in the
workplace reasonably characterized as irate and irrational. Accordingly, we found insufficient
evidence to establish a Rehabilitation Act violation.

We also found insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the Agency for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination or otherwise motivated by discrimination or retaliation. The record established
that the Postmaster indicated that she needed documentation related to a new condition
Complainant raised as the reason for her leave. Further, the Postmaster noted that Complainant
was provided with LWOP based on her leave record. Lastly, we found that Complainant had not
shown that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on the single incident she
alleged in Claim 2.

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. Complainant raises similar arguments to those that have been
previously considered and rejected.

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. 0120152459 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.

0520180156

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

April 18, 2018
Date