Louvenia S.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 21, 20160520160421 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Louvenia S.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 0520160421 Appeal No. 0120161334 Agency No. 4G-760-0023-16 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120161334 (June 3, 2016). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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). On January 7, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On December 4, 2015, management did not comply with Arbitration Settlement 14087335, which stated Complainant must be converted to a career employee within 30 days. Subsequently, she was required to take a contractual break in service from December 8, 2015 through December 13, 2015; and 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. 0520160421 2 2. On December 4, 2015, the Agency continued to remove personnel action forms from Complainant’s eOPF file and changed the disability code on her PS Form 50. The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) for failure to state a claim. The Agency determined that claim (1) was an impermissible collateral attack on another proceeding. In addition, as to claim (2), the Agency concluded that Complainant had not shown that she was harmed nor that such a claim would be reasonably likely to deter Complainant or others from participating in the EEO complaint process. Accordingly, the Agency dismissed the complaint. Complainant appealed and in, Louvenia S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120161334 (June 3, 2016), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal. As to claim (1), the Commission determined that Complainant should have raised her concerns about the Agency’s failure to comply with the Arbitration Settlement within the arbitration process itself, and not through the EEO complaint process. Regarding claim (2), the Commission found that Complainant had not shown that the alleged action constituted a harm or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Accordingly, the Commission found that the Agency’s dismissal was proper. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously raised on appeal. 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 0120161334 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 0520160421 3 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 21, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation