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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 6, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003076 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 6, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Scott K.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000002 Appeal No. 2020003076 Agency No. 1G-351-0056-18 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Scott K. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2020003076 (Sept. 17, 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 subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his race (African-American) when: (1) since January 2018, Complainant’s supervisor spoke to him in an insulting and/or demeaning manner; (2) since January 2018, Complainant has been threatened with being disciplined, and/or terminated; (3) since January 2018, Complainant has been singled out during daily telecoms; (4) since January 2018, Complainant has been required to report when he would be impacting customer service with late trips. 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. 2021000002 2 Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter dismissed the complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact. Complainant asserted that he was subjected to a hostile work environment through June 21, 2018.2 However, Complainant did not initiate EEO contact until August 31, 2018, outside of the regulatory EEO Counselor contact time-period. As a result, the AJ dismissed the complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The Agency issued a final action fully implementing the AJ’s dismissal decision. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the dismissal for untimely EEO Counselor contact. We also found that Complainant failed to present sufficient justification for his untimely EEO contact. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments related to the merits of his complaint. 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), at 9-18 (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. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 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. 2020003076 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. 2 Complainant left the workplace on June 22, 2018. 2021000002 3 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 January 6, 2021 Date