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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 16, 2018

0520180541 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 16, 2018)

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

Man H.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180541

Appeal No. 0120172739

Hearing No. 490-2016-00017X

Agency No. 4G-390-0052-15

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172739 (July 16, 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).

In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order adopting the
decision of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ), who
granted summary judgment in favor of the Agency. We found that the AJ properly granted
summary judgment on Complainant’s claim that the Agency discriminated against him on the
bases of race, sex, color, and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when it provided him with
fewer work hours than it provided to another employee.

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.
0520180541

2
Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, we concluded that he did not
establish that there were material facts in dispute and that the AJ correctly determined that the
preponderance of the evidence did not establish that the Agency discriminated against
Complainant as alleged.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant maintains that his claim concerns the denial of
additional, non-scheduled work hours rather than the assignment of fewer hours. He argues, as
he did on appeal, that the Agency discriminatorily prevented him from earning additional work
hours. He asserts that the AJ did not consider his “core” claim, which concerned the denial of
additional hours.

We remind Complainant 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) (rev. Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC
Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to
demonstrate that the previous 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. Although Complainant disagrees with the previous decision,
he has not shown that the Commission clearly erred when it concluded that the AJ properly
granted summary judgment to the Agency. To the extent that Complainant argues that the AJ
did not address the denial of additional hours, his argument is unpersuasive. In that regard, we
note that the AJ specifically found that Complainant did not “present sufficient evidence to show
the Agency's articulated reasons for not providing additional hours were based on discrimination
or retaliation.” Complainant has not shown that the previous decision was clearly erroneous or
that it will have a substantial impact on the Agency.

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. 0120172739 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.

0520180541

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

November 16, 2018
Date