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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 21, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001525 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 21, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Nina G.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency. Appeal No. 2020001525 Hearing No. 471-2017-00120X Agency No. 4J-493-0019-17 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s November 9, 2019 final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Full-Time City Carrier, 01/Q, at the Agency’s Boardwalk Branch Post Office in Saginaw, Michigan. On May 6, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (residual effects of hip injury) when, she was not accommodated per her medical restrictions when she was sent home and instructed to provide new medical documentation, and subsequently, when she returned with new medical documentation, she was sent home again. At the informal stage, Complainant requested that she be awarded $2,000 in compensatory damages. Investigative Report (IR) 8, 12. 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. 2020001525 2 On March 15, 2017, while the processing of her informal EEO complaint was still ongoing, the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) filed a grievance on Complainant’s behalf. The matter was subsequently settled. Section 19b of the grievance settlement form contains the following notice: Due to the remand on JH-12-17 / GATS JIIN-4J-C17392585, a meeting occurred between [Complainant’s] Step A Representative (NALC) and [the Agency’s Representative at which] the aforementioned grievance was resolved at said meeting on April 13, 2017 as follows: the grievant shall be paid 162.94 hours at her appropriate rate of pay for being sent home improperly 2/8 - 3/9/17. The grievant will be made whole for all benefits that should have accrued/been paid for the time period as well. [The Agency] will provide evidence that pay adjustments have accrued and grievant was made whole. [The] ASM * * * will be reminded of his Article 15 requirements. The document includes the signatures of Complainant’s representative and the Agency’s representative, both of which are dated April 13, 2017. IR 77-78. It does not include any mention of any additional remedies being awarded. Complainant proceeded with her EEO complaint, however, filing Agency No. 4J-493-0019-17 on May 5, 2017. When asked what remedy she desired in Section 17 of the complaint form, Complainant stated: “2 weeks off work paid of my choice [and] anger management classes for [the ASM].” There was no mention of compensatory damages in the complaint form. In Section 18 of that form, Complainant was asked whether she had discussed her complaint with an EEO ADR Specialist or a REDRESS mediator, to which she responded “no” despite having had the initial interview with the Specialist on March 23, 2017. IR 5. At the completion of the ensuing investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the investigative report and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Although Complainant timely requested a hearing, the AJ assigned to the case dismissed the hearing request and remanded the complaint to the Agency for the issuance of a final decision. In its final decision, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint as moot, finding that Complainant had been made whole through the grievance process.2 Complainant timely filed an appeal but did not submit a brief or statement in support. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Mootness is one of the enumerated grounds for dismissing a complaint. The Commission’s regulations explicitly provide that the agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that is moot. 29 C.F.R. §1614.107(a)(5). 2 Alternatively, the Agency addressed the merits of the complaint finding no discrimination. 2020001525 3 To determine whether the issues raised in complainant's complaint are moot, the factfinder must ascertain whether (1) it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. Jone A. v, Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004689 (Apr. 22, 2021) citing County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). When such circumstances exist, no relief is available and no need for a determination of the rights of the parties is presented. As noted above, Complainant did not raise any arguments on appeal. Further, Complainant did not raise a claim of compensatory damages in her formal complaint. Accordingly, we concur with the Agency’s finding that the matter was rendered moot by the grievance resolution as no further relief for this matter is available. Accordingly, the Agency's final decision dismissing Complainant's complaint is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that tend to establish 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. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. 2020001525 4 An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. 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 June 21, 2021 Date