[Redacted], Charlie K., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004253 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Charlie K.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021001624 Appeal No. 2020004253 Hearing No. 490-2019-00199X Agency No. 4C-370-0018-19 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Charlie K. v. U.S. Postal Serv. EEOC Appeal No. 2020004253 (Nov. 18, 2020). 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, a Part-Time Rural Carrier Associate at the Agency's Cleveland, Tennessee Post Office, filed a formal EEO complaint in which he alleged that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (African-American), national origin (Africa), and color (black) when on January 22, 2019, he was issued a Letter of Separation, effective December 11, 2018. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 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. 2021001624 2 The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s decision and Complainant appealed. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed, finding that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration were largely raised in her previous appeal, fully considered, and rejected. Complainant has not shown that the AJ erred in finding that she failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. The Commission finds that the AJ’s decision appropriately indicated that the record was fully developed, that the AJ considered all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, and that the evidence established that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. In sum, Complainant has not presented any evidence establishing that the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in this matter. Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence of either reconsideration criterion. 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. 2020004253 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. 2021001624 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 April 8, 2021 Date