[Redacted], Mana H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 22, 2021Appeal No. 2019002506 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 22, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mana H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000341 Appeal No. 2019002506 Agency No. 4G-320-0167-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002506 (September 16, 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 City Carrier at the Columbus Post Office, in Columbus, Georgia. Believing that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, as set forth in twenty-seven claims, Complainant filed an EEO complaint based on sex (female), disability (physical), and reprisal for prior EEO activity (Case No. 4G-350-0066-16). When the Agency did not timely receive a hearing request, it issued a final decision. In its decision, the Agency found no discrimination. While it determined that Complainant was a “qualified individual with a disability,” the Agency nonetheless found that she did not show that 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. 2021000341 2 the Agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. With respect to the discrete claims of discrimination, the Agency reasoned that in most instances Complainant failed to cite similarly situated individuals outside of her protected bases that were treated better. In other instances, the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding Complainant’s broader claim of harassment, the Agency concluded that there was no connection to her protected bases and the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive. In many instances, the allegations were simply common daily interactions between supervisors and employees. Complainant appealed the decision to the Commission. In our prior decision, we first considered Complainant’s assertion that she had requested a hearing but that an administrative error resulted in mailing the Agency’s copy as a duplicate to the Commission. See EEOC Appeal No. 2019002506 (Oct. 16, 2020). The Commission concluded that Complainant did not properly request a hearing and the Agency correctly issued a final decision. See id. In assessing the Agency’s decision, the Commission agreed that Complainant did not establish she was denied a reasonable accommodation. See id. Rather, the record showed that her eight-hour medical restriction was accommodated, she was provided assistance when requested and mail was taken from her each day. See id. As for refusing Complainant a lunch break, her supervisor denied the allegation. See id. Regarding Complainant’s claim that an Agency official contacted her doctor’s office, Complainant failed to identify the individual and generally support her allegation. See id. The Commission noted that although Complainant attacked the credibility of her supervisor, she failed to provide supportive evidence. See id. For the more than half a dozen claims of disparate treatment, the Commission agreed that Complainant did not meet her burden in showing a connection between the Agency’s actions and her sex, disability or prior EEO activity. See id. The same was true of her broader harassment claim. See id. The Agency’s decision finding no discrimination was affirmed. See id. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant presents arguments that were, or should have been, raised on appeal. For example, she challenges the credibility of Agency officials, relying simply on their blanket denials (“no”, “don’t know”, “don’t recall”), without any supportive evidence. Complainant argues that Agency officials were aware of her prior EEO case and requests for accommodation. She contends there is a nexus between that knowledge and their actions, but fails to point to evidence. As on appeal, Complainant describes the alleged events and expresses conclusory statements without offering the necessary supportive evidence to meet her burden of persuasion. In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. §1614.407(c) is met. The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989). A request for reconsideration is not merely a form of a second appeal. Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). 2021000341 3 Instead, it is an opportunity to submit newly discovered evidence, not previously available; to establish substantive error in a previous decision; or to explain why the previous decision will have effects beyond the case at hand. Lyke v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900769 (September 27, 1990). 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. 2019002506 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 February 22, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation