[Redacted], Emmitt E,, 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 4, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003523 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Emmitt E,,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Request No. 2021003051 Appeal No. 2020003523 Hearing Nos. 550-2017-00374X 550-2019-00064X Agency Nos. 4F-945-0100-16 4F-945-0081-18 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003523 (March 23, 2021). 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Steinbeck Station in Salinas, California. On November 7, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint (Agency No. 4F-945-0100- 16) alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the bases of race 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. 2021003051 2 (Caucasian), sex (male), disability (residual fractured right ankle, left ankle, left hip and mental), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. on unspecified dates, Complainant’s supervisor forced him to adhere to Delivery Operations Information System (DOIS) projections for casing and leave times; 2. on April 27, 2016, Complainant was issued a Notice of 7-Day No-Time-Off Suspension; 3. on July 26, 2016, Complainant’s supervisor physically assaulted him; 4. on July 26, 2016, Complainant was put on Emergency Placement in an Off-Duty Status; 5. on August 10, 2016, Complainant was issued a Notice of 14-Day No-Time-Off Suspension dated August 3, 2016; 6. on September 22, 2016, Complainant’s supervisor told him that she was tired of his attitude, and the Officer in Charge (OIC) accused Complainant of using time-wasting practices and would walk with Complainant for his entire route; 7. on September 22, 2016, Complainant’s request for a union steward was denied; 8. on September 20, 2016, Complainant requested a Special Route Inspection on his route, but management failed to take any action on his request; 9. on November 17, 2016, Complainant’s supervisor conducted an inspection of his route, but did not provide him with a completed PS Form 3999 or any other feedback; and 10. on February 13, 2017 and other dates, management held discussions with Complainant concerning delivery of his route in the presence of co-workers, followed Complainant on his route, and harassed Complainant about the time required for him to complete his route. On June 25, 2018, Complainant filed another formal EEO complaint (Agency Case No. 4F-945- 0081-18) alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and harassment on the bases of race, sex, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 11. beginning on or about April of 2018 and continuing, Complainant was constantly harassed and questioned regarding his office and street performance, and his requests for auxiliary assistance and/or overtime and a route adjustment were not granted; 2021003051 3 12. on April 6, 2018, Complainant was given an Official Discussion; 13. on April 18, 2018, Complainant was the only employee not allowed to case his “FSS” mail; 14. on April 18 and 24, 2018, Complainant was denied a union steward; 15. on May 3, 2018, Complainant was given an Investigative Interview and he was called “stupid;” 16. on May 3, 2018, Complainant was questioned about his medical restrictions; 17. beginning on June 1, 2018, Complainant was required to complete PS Form 1260 when taking an extra break; and 18. on or about June 22, 2018 and continuing, Complainant’s requests to speak with the OIC were not granted. After its investigation into the two complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with copies of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing and the complaints were consolidated for processing. The Agency submitted motions for a decision without a hearing, and Complainant filed responses to both motions. The AJ subsequently issued a consolidated decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020003523, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. In his request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during his original appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 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. 2021003051 4 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003523 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. 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 4, 2021 Date