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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 9, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003039 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 9, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mary E,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000787 Appeal No. 2020003039 Hearing No. 410-2017-00114X Agency No. 4K-300-0148-16 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003039 (October 1, 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). Complainant worked as a Rural Carrier at the Agency’s facility in Snellville, Georgia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment in retaliation for prior protected 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. 2021000787 2 1. on January 30, 2016, management questioned her regarding breaks and delivery; 2. on April 4, 2016, management placed her on emergency placement off-duty status without pay; and 3. on April 20, 2016, management issued her a Notice of Removal.2 Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her unlawful retaliation claims. In his decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to produce any evidence that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were motivated by retaliatory animus. Specifically, with respect to claim (1), the record shows that on January 30, 2016, Complainant’s supervisor reviewed delivery records and found that Complainant stayed at a gas station for nearly 20 minutes after the completion of her route. Complainant states that she informed the supervisor that the gas station was where she chose to take her break and acknowledges that no further action was taken by management. As to claims (2) and (3), the record shows that on March 25, 2016, Complainant was involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in her being thrown from her postal vehicle and the driverless vehicle rolling into oncoming traffic. Although Complainant reported to the police that she had gotten out of the vehicle on her own and laid down on the street, she later told Agency management that her seatbelt had either released when the vehicle was struck or that she had her hand on the seatbelt release which caused her to be thrown from the vehicle when it was struck. The record shows that, in response to Complainant’s inconsistent explanations for how she was thrown from the vehicle, management put her in emergency placement off-duty status on April 4, 2016. Following an inspection of the vehicle that showed that the seat belt mechanism had been working properly, management issued Complainant a Notice of Removal for Unsatisfactory Work Performance - Failure to Observe Safety Rules and Regulations, and Failure to Follow Instructions. The Notice specifically stated that if “you had been attentive to your safety responsibilities and engaged your seatbelt as you have been instructed, you would not have been ejected from the vehicle and you would have been more likely able to prevent the vehicle from running away without a driver.” In her request for reconsideration, Complainant merely points to her response to the motion for summary judgement when the case was before the AJ. 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. 2 Another claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and because Complainant did not challenge the dismissal on appeal, it was not addressed. 2021000787 3 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. 2020003039 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 9, 2021 Date