[Redacted], Dion H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004149 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Dion H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency. Request No. 2021000608 Appeal No. 2020004149 Agency No. 6H-000-0008-20 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Dion H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004149 (Oct. 1, 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). In his underlying complaint, Complainant, a Physical Security Specialist at the Agency's U.S. Inspection Service (USPIS) in Denver, Colorado, alleged that the Agency subjected him to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on March 29, 2020, he became aware that on May 28, 2019, the USPIS Attorney called his Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (OWCP) Claims Examiner and provided her with false information, that resulted in the denial of his OWCP claim. 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. 2021000608 2 In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for failure to state a claim reasoning that the complaint raised a collateral attack on the OWCP adjudicatory process. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal, observing that objections to Agency evidence presented during the OWCP process must be raised directly to OWCP and not in an EEO complaint. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the rule prohibiting collateral attacks on administrative decisions does not apply here because his claim is one of “retaliation.” The Commission has repeatedly held otherwise. See, e.g., Bell v. Dep't of Transp., EEOC Appeal No. 01991806 (Jan. 11, 2001) (dismissing complainant's reprisal claim that the Agency was falsifying and failing to check her documentation for completeness before submitting it to OWCP); Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120151132 (July 15, 2015) (finding disability and reprisal claims based on the Agency's mishandling of benefit claims and payroll records were an impermissible collateral attack on OWCP process). We find that Complainant’s arguments do not 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. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Commission should reconsider its appellate decision. 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. 2020004129 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. 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. 2021000608 3 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 22, 2021 Date