[Redacted], Karlene G., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2019004912 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Karlene G.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000984 Appeal No. 2019004912 Hearing No. 471-2017-00060X Agency No. 1J-482-0052-16 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Karlene G. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 2019004912 (Sept. 30, 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 period at issue, Complainant worked as a Full-time Mail Handler, M-04, at the Processing and Distribution Center in Pontiac, Michigan. 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. 2021000984 2 On September 19, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against her based on disability (chronic head and neck pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other conditions) when, on May 18, May 25, and September 6, 2016, Complainant’s requests for reasonable accommodation in accordance with her medical restrictions were denied. The Agency issued a final decision on September 30, 2020 finding no discrimination.2 In EEOC Appeal No. 2019004912, we determined that the Agency did not deny Complainant a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The decision found that Complainant’s work restrictions (no heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, or standing; no constant repetitive physical motion; and no working more than eight hours a day) prevented her from performing the essential functions of her position which included mail prepping, loading, pushing, pulling, standing, bending, and using heavy equipment. The decision noted that the Agency had approved Complainant’s requests for light duty assignments, consisting of seated work, in thirty-day intervals from December 2013 through June 2015, until Complainant left work in June 2015. The decision explained that Complainant failed to provide the Agency any suggestions as to what accommodations she would need to perform her hired position and Complainant failed to demonstrate that there were there available vacant, funded positions to which she could be reassigned within her work restrictions. Therefore, the prior decision concluded that the Agency had not violated the Rehabilitation Act. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant, through counsel, submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. However, we emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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. 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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004912 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2 The record indicates that Complainant initially requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge but subsequently withdrew the request. 2021000984 3 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 March 2, 2021 Date