0520180453
09-27-2018
Liz M.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Liz M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520180453
Appeal Nos. 0120170672, 0120170803, 0120171899 & 0120180024
Hearing No. 540-2015-00216X & 540-2016-00244X
Agency Nos. 4E-852-0018-15, 4E-852-0012-16, 4E-852-0147-16 & 4E-852-0100-17
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120170672. 0120170803, 0120171899, and 0120180024 (April 20, 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).
Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency's Post Office in Bullhead City, Arizona. In complaint 1 (4E-852-0018-15), Complainant alleged she was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment when: (1) on October 30, 2014, she was scheduled to attend a District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC) meeting; (2) on an unspecified date, she was singled out when she received a November 4, 2014 letter from the Agency's occupational nurse giving her seven days to request the results of a FFDE; and (3) on an unspecified date, she became aware of a letter dated May 23, 2014, from the USPS Law Department attorney referring to her as an employee who can be difficult to work with and supervise. In complaint 2 (4E-852-0012-16), Complainant alleged she was discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment on the bases of disability, age, and reprisal when: (1) on or around October 1, 2015, the details of Complainant's DRAC case were discussed without her consent; and (2) on or around March 17, 2016, Complainant became aware that her Administrative Leave was going to be terminated effective April 1, 2016. In complaint 3 (4E-852-0147-16), Complainant alleged she was discriminated against on the bases of sex, disability, age and reprisal when: (1) on or around June 2, 2016, she was denied reasonable accommodation when she was offered a vacant funded position 50 miles away; (2) on or around June 22, 2016, her request for advanced sick leave was denied; and (3) on or around August 31, 2016, she became aware that she was not selected for a career position in Laughlin, Nevada. In complaint 4 (4E-852-0100-17), Complainant alleged discrimination on the bases of sex, disability, age and reprisal when, on January 30, 2017, her appeal to the District Human Resources Manager of the December 14, 2016 DRAC decision was denied.
Complainant requested a hearing on complaints 1 and 2, but subsequently withdrew her request. The Agency issued a final Agency decision (FAD) on each of the complaints. Our prior decision consolidated the four complaints/appeals. The decision found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment, affirming all of the FADs.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision. 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 consolidated decision in EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120170672, 0120171803, 0120171899 and 0120180024 remains the Commission's final 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
September 27, 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
0520180453
3
0520180453