Leanne H.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 2, 2018
0520180021 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2018)

0520180021

02-02-2018

Leanne H.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Leanne H.,1

Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Eastern Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520180021

Appeal No. 0120170853

Hearing No. 530-2011-00062X

Agency No. 4C250005609

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170853 (September 7, 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).

Complainant was employed as a Postmaster in Summit Point, West Virginia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of disability and reprisal when: (1) the Agency in September 2009, notified her that effective October 10, 2009, her pay status would change from exempt to nonexempt; and (2) the Agency denied her reasonable accommodation when it changed her pay status from exempt to nonexempt; and (3) the Agency subjected her to a pattern of harassment and a hostile work environment.

The Agency investigated the complaint and Complainant requested a hearing. An EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by partial summary judgement with respect to claims 1 and 2, and found in favor of the Agency. With regard to these claims, the AJ determined that the evidence established that it was Headquarters that did an audit of the 2008 work hours of employees in Level 13 to Level 18 Post Offices across the country to determine whether Postmasters were properly classified for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Complainant was among the many postmasters nationwide who failed to meet the threshold to attain "exempt" status because Complainant directed the work of two or more employees for only three of fifty-two weeks of the 2008 fiscal year. The AJ found the evidence showed that many others also had their status changed and Complainant did not identify anyone else who was treated more favorably than she. As to her reasonable accommodation claim, Complainant argued that because of the change of her status, she was no longer able to use personal leave for doctor appointments as she had in the past. The AJ concluded, however, that she was still accommodated with approved leave for doctor's appointment, albeit sick or annual leave, and that she was not entitled to the accommodation of her choice.

The AJ held a hearing on claim 3, and issued a bench decision finding that Complainant failed to meet her burden of proof. Complainant states she is not appealing claim 3. As such, we will not address it herein.

Our prior decision affirmed the findings of the AJ.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision, and reiterates some of her arguments made on appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, � VII.A. 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. 0120170853 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.

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 2, 2018

__________________

Date

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.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0520180021