Mario H.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 7, 2019

2019002627 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2019)

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

Mario H.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.

Request No. 2019002627

Appeal No. 2019000812

Agency No. 1G-336-0064-18

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Mario H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019000812 (Mar. 5, 2019). 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 his underlying complaint, Complainant, a Mail Handler at the Agency's Tampa, Florida
Processing and Distribution Center, claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his
race (African-American) when on November 21, 2017, his request for a temporary change of
schedule was disapproved by the Senior Manager. Complainant’s regular non-scheduled days
were Thursdays and Fridays. Complainant submitted a request to instead be off on December 18
and 19, 2017, a Monday and Tuesday.

In its final decision, the Agency determined that Complainant had not been subjected to race
discrimination. The Senior Manager stated that he denied Complainant’s request because

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.
2019002627

2
Complainant was needed on the days he desired to be off and, based on the information he had, no
more employees were needed in the rewrap area for the dates Complainant wanted to work.
According to the Senior Manager, his only considerations were operational needs and the ability
to accommodate based on projected mail volume and staffing. The Agency noted that the Senior
Manager, like Complainant, was African-American.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision. We found that Complainant
failed to establish that the Agency’s proffered reasons were a pretext for discrimination. We
observed that Complainant claimed that a Caucasian coworker was treated more favorably when
his request for a schedule change was granted. However, we pointed out that the coworker’s
request was approved by a different official.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the Commission’s previous decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material facts. Complainant states that the Senior
Manager informed him immediately without looking at the dates involved that his request for a
change of schedule would be denied. Complainant maintains that the Senior Manager could not
have known no more employees were needed in the rewrap area for the dates he wanted to work
if he did not know the actual dates he requested. Further, Complainant claims that although the
coworker’s schedule change was approved by a different official than the Senior Manager, it was
the Senior Manager who told the official to approve the request.

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 has presented no evidence to support reconsideration of the
Commission's finding that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions which Complainant failed to show were pretextual. We discern no persuasive argument
or evidence in Complainant’s request for reconsideration that satisfies the criteria for granting his
request to reconsider.

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. 2019000812 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.
2019002627

3
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

August 7, 2019
Date