[Redacted], Erick N., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 15, 2021

Appeal No. 2019003209 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 15, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Erick N.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Request No. 2021003581 Appeal No. 2019003209 Hearing No. 430-2014-00291X Agency No. 1K-231-0004-14 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019003209 (August 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Custodian at the Agency’s Lynhaven Station in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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. 2021003581 2 On January 24, 2014, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on religion (Seventh Day Apostolic) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when he was denied an accommodation of Friday evenings off work, and when his employment was terminated on September 28, 2013. After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ held a hearing on February 7 and 8, 2017, and issued a decision on August 28, 2017. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency had subjected Complainant to discrimination based on religion when it failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment. To remedy the discrimination, the AJ ordered the Agency to, inter alia, reinstate Complainant to a position as a Post Support Employee or an equivalent position; pay Complainant back pay and benefits; offer Complainant religious accommodation; pay Complainant $500 in pecuniary damages; and pay Complainant $30,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision and the relief ordered. The Agency issued payments for the compensatory damages award in November 2017. Complainant returned to work in November 2017 as well. In December 2017, the Agency sent a letter to Complainant noting that he had not submitted several forms needed to calculate the backpay award. The forms were related to Complainant’s income during the backpay period. In January 2018, the Agency again wrote Complainant, indicating that it still had not received the requested documentation. On March 6, 2019, the Agency re-sent Complainant the PS Form 8039 for processing his backpay award. Complainant had previously completed a PS Form 8039, but the Agency said that Complainant did not complete Question 6 on the form, which sought evidence of unemployment compensation, including the state from which compensation was paid and the dates. Two days later, Complainant provided Form 1099-G for unemployment compensation from the State of Virginia to the Agency. On March 14, 2019, Complainant, through his attorney, asked the Agency whether the Form 1099-G was sufficient. On March 26, 2019, the Agency responded that, without a date range for unemployment compensation received, it could not properly process the award. The Agency asked for the dates as soon as possible. In response, Complainant’s attorney said that the Agency’s position was “completely unacceptable” and added that he believed the Agency was “already aware from the information provided that the payments became effective November 17, 2013 and that they lasted 12 weeks. Complainant subsequently filed an appeal with the Commission. In an email on April 17, 2019, five days after Complainant filed this appeal with the Commission, the Agency explained to Complainant that the Form 1099-G Complainant provided to the Agency was incomplete and that there were discrepancies in two documents Complainant completed. First, on PS Form 8038, Complainant denied receiving unemployment compensation, but identified $6,030 in gross amount received. Complainant also did not identify dates. 2021003581 3 On the other hand, on PS Form 8039, Complainant did not affirm or deny whether he received unemployment compensation but identified $7,705 in compensation from 2013 to 2014. Therefore, the Agency indicated it did not have sufficient information to process Complainant’s backpay award. As a result, the Agency engaged a private contractor to obtain information Complainant would not provide and completed the processing Complainant’s backpay award. On May 3, 2019, the Agency issued a check to Complainant in the amount of $23,999.28 for back pay. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2019003209, we determined that Complainant simply argued that the Agency improperly processed and delayed his award for back pay. The Agency subsequently issued a check for backpay to Complainant. Notably, the appellate decision found that Complainant did not submit any challenge to the Agency’s calculations of the backpay award. Accordingly, based on the circumstances present, we concluded there was no evidence that the Agency acted in bad faith or otherwise failed to comply with the backpay award. We have now considered the arguments on Complainant’s request for reconsideration and discern nothing in the prior record reflecting either an erroneous interpretation of fact or law, or a substantial impact upon the policies, practices or operations of the Agency. Thereafter, upon 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. 2019003209 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. 2021003581 4 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 September 15, 2021 Date