[Redacted], Kori S., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 7, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001037 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 7, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kori S.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Request No. 2021003019 Appeal No. 2020001037 Hearing Nos. 560201800346X, 560201700234X Agency Nos. 4E-640-0109-16, 4E-640-0064-7 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Kori S. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2020001037 (Mar. 18, 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). On July 25, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 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. 2021003019 2 1. On May 30, 2016, Complainant was verbally assaulted and asked to step outside by a coworker and management did not do anything about it; 2. On July 13, 2016, a coworker talked about Complainant’s work restrictions; 3. On September 9, 2016, Complainant was given a discussion for something that happened three months prior; 4. On September 10, 2016, Complainant was given a discussion by the Postmaster and told that she should call her Supervisor, instead of texting; 5. On September 13, 2016, the Postmaster told a customer about her lifting restrictions to see if the customer would assist Complainant with putting the parcels in Complainant’s vehicle when she came to pick them up; 6. On September 14, 2016, the Postmaster accused her of harassing a coworker; 7. On January 17, 2017, she was given a Letter of Warning for failure to follow instructions; and 8. On April 1, 2017, she was issued a Notice of Seven-Day No Time Off Suspension for Failure to Follow Instructions. In a second complaint, she alleged disability discrimination when: 9. On June 10, 2017, she was denied a “Hold-Down position” on postal route 19; and 10. On July 22, 2017, management was discussing Complainant’s disability on the workroom floor. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. In her request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting her request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2020001037 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021003019 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 July 7, 2021 Date