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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 21, 2022

Appeal No. 2021002709 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 21, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Shad R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Request No. 2022004211 Appeal No. 2021002709 Agency No. 4G-700-005321 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021002709 (August 30, 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). At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Motor Vehicle Operator at the Agency’s New Orleans Processing and Distribution Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. On February 12, 2021, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination based on race, color, and disability when, on the date of the arbitration, Complainant was told by another employee that the employee lived around all white people and he knew Complainant had the best work record and that the employee should not have Complainant removed, but he was going to do it anyway. (Complaint File, p. 128). Complainant further indicated that the time limit should be waived due to Complainant’s mental incompetency. (Complaint File, p. 129). 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. 2022004211 2 In its decision, the Agency characterized this complaint as alleging that the Agency subjected Complainant to discrimination on the bases of race (Not Specified), color (Black), and disability when, on August 14, 1999, he was terminated from the Agency. The Agency dismissed this claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) as stating the same claim that is pending before or has been decided by the Agency or the Commission. Complainant appealed the Agency’s dismissal of his complaint. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021002709, we affirmed the Agency’s dismissal. We found that Complainant’s prior EEO complaint (Agency No. 1G-701-0076-00/EEOC Appeal No. 01A13740), alleged discrimination when, on August 9, 1999, Complainant was issued a letter of decision removing him from the Agency for being absent without official leave. The prior decision noted that although Complainant alleges this is a new claim, we found that it is only more evidence in support of Complainant’s earlier allegations that he was wrongly removed. As such, the prior decision held that the Agency’s dismissal of the complaint at hand pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) was appropriate. The instant request for reconsideration followed. However, upon review, nothing that Complainant has submitted supports a determination that the prior decision affirming the Agency’s final decision was in error. A request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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. 2021002709 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. 2022004211 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 December 21, 2022 Date