[Redacted], Sean S. Brown, 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 28, 2021

Appeal No. 2021002724 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 28, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sean S. Brown,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Request No. 2021004140 Appeal No. 2021002724 Agency No. 1G-336-0029-21 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Homer V. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2021002724 (June 8, 2021). 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). From approximately December 2019 until his termination on November 20, 2020, Complainant was employed by “JDog Junk Removal and Hauling.” The record reflects that approximately one decade earlier, Complainant had worked as a Mail Processor at the Agency's airport location in Tampa, Florida. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination based on race (African-American), color (Black), sex (male), disability (physical), age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity. Complainant raised the following claim: 1 The Commission typically uses pseudonyms in lieu of complainants’ real names when publishing its appellate decisions. In this instance, however, Complainant requested that his real name be used. 2021004140 2 On November 20, 2020, my ex-employer JDOG of Tampa Bay wrongfully terminated my employment due to me filing my 2019 taxes. Which confirmed to the Office of Personnel Management and the Postal Service I had met the threshold needed to actively return to the Postal Service. As prescribed by disability retirement requirements I requested a copy of the petition of review in [MSPB] case #AT-0752-10-0168-1-I never received. Thereafter, Complainant submitted an amendment stating: I discovered that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Postal Service, and the Merit Systems Protection Board had collusioned [sic] together to defraud me of my EEO cases by bringing an appellant court to me when I had never applied to the circuit first. The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim finding that Complainant was not an employee or applicant for employment with the Agency, noting that his last date in pay status with the Agency was in May 2009. Further, the Agency stated that the proper forum for Complainant to bring his concerns regarding case #AT-0752-10-0168-1-I was with the MSPB, not the EEOC. Finally, the Agency found that the alleged claims did not concern a loss or harm to a term, condition or privilege of Complainant's employment with the Agency. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the dismissal. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made and 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. 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. 2021002724 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021004140 3 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 September 28, 2021 Date