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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005244 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Phyllis F.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021001005 Appeal No. 2019005244 Agency No. 4G-760-0086-18 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019005244 (October 15, 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 Sakes & Services Distribution Associate at the Post Office in Scotland, Texas. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging she was discriminated against on the bases of disability and age (50) when: 1. On a daily basis since September 2016, the Post Office Operations Manager (POOM) and her Postmaster (PM1) did not accommodate Complainant’s medical restrictions in regard to work hours; 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. 2021001005 2 2. On September 2, 2017, POOM took Complainant off a detail to which she had been assigned since February 25, 2017; 3. On October 17, 2017, and again on April 23, August 6, August 24, 2018, and February 7, 2019, PM1, POOM, and several coworkers harassed Complainant; 4. On April 23, 2018, POOM questioned Complainant’s integrity; 5. On April 23 and August 24, 2018, POOM and PM1 accused Complainant of wrongdoing; 6. In emails dated June 11, August 21, September 4, 2018, and again on February 5, 2019, PM1 instructed Complainant to perform custodial work outside of her job description; 7. In emails dated July 31 and August 21, 2018, POOM and PM1 told Complainant that she could not speak to anyone; 8. Over the course of eleven pay periods between August 2018 and February 2019, POOM and PM1 denied Complainant out-of-schedule (OOS) pay; 9. On August 7, 2018, PM1 talked negatively about Complainant’s work performance; and 10. On October 1, 2018, PM1 notified Complainant via certified letter that her bid assignment had been abolished. Complainant further amended her complaint alleging she was subjected to reprisal when: 11. On January 4, 2019, PM1 and a more senior level Postmaster (PM2) demanded that Complainant sign paperwork allowing the Agency to recover OOS pay she had previously received; 12. On January 8, 2019, Complainant became aware that the payroll office had processed an improper payroll deduction in the amount of $155.28 from her then current paycheck; and 13. On February 22, 2019, Complainant became aware that she had improperly been charged 32 hours of leave without pay for hours she had actually worked. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision that concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The decision addressed Complainant’s claims in detail. It found she was not denied reasonable accommodation. The decision also found that Complainant’s harassment claims were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. As to her disparate treatment claims the decision determined that Complainant did not provide evidence to support her claims. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision, and reiterates some of her arguments made on appeal. She includes numerous documents that were part of the original record. Complainant questions the credibility of management witnesses. However, we note she chose not to have a hearing where she could have engaged in further discovery and had the benefit of credibility determinations by an EEOC Administrative Judge. 2021001005 3 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. 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. 2019005244 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 March 2, 2021 Date