[Redacted], Matilde H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 12, 2021

Appeal No. 2019004873 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 12, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Matilde H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 2020005523 Appeal No. 2019004873 Agency No. 4G-770-0310-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Matilide H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019004873 (Aug. 31, 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). In the underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her based on her race (African-American), religion (atheist), color (black), disability, age (over 40), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when, between July 19 - 29, 2017, she was assigned work duties outside of her medical restrictions. 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. 2020005523 2 Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination. Our appellate decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that management’s proffered explanation for its actions was a pretext designed to mask discrimination or reprisal. In so finding, the Commission determined that the record showed that Complainant was not compelled to work outside of her work restrictions, but that any such actions were undertaken voluntarily, without mandate or suggestion by management officials. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made and fully considered on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. 2019004873 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. 2020005523 3 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 January 12, 2021 Date