[Redacted], Claud S., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005729 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Claud S.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Request No. 2021000264 Appeal No. 2019005729 Hearing No. 480-2018-00368X Agency No. 4F-920-0165-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Claud S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019005729 (Sept. 9, 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 City Carrier, Q-01, at the Agency’s facility in Carlsbad, California, filed an EEO complaint wherein he claimed that he was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of his race (African-American) and in reprisal for his prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On July 1, 2017, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning; 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. 2021000264 2 2. On October 21, 2017, Complainant’s Supervisor directed him to use a substitute vehicle or go home; 3. On October 23, 2017, Complainant was given an investigative interview, and on November 3, 2017, he was issued a seven-day suspension; and 4. On December 1 and 4, 2017, management would not accept Complainant’s doctors’ notes and would not allow him to return to work. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding no discrimination, reprisal, or hostile work environment. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. We found that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment on the bases of race or reprisal. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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. We find that Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision. Complainant has not refuted the explanations that the Agency provided for the actions at issue. Complainant has failed to establish that he was subjected to discrimination or a hostile work environment on the bases of race or reprisal with regard to any of the matters at issue. 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. 2019005729 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. 2021000264 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 January 8, 2021 Date