[Redacted], Tabetha M., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 9, 2021

Appeal No. 2019003529 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 9, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Tabetha M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000112 Appeal No. 2019003529 Agency No. 4E-852-0063-18 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Tabetha M. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 2019003529 (Sept. 22, 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). During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s Bullhead City (BHC) Post Office in Bullhead City, Arizona. On May 14, 2018, Complainant filed a formal complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against her based on disability (unspecified physical disability, obsessive compulsive disorder, and chronic anxiety) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when: 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. 2021000112 2 1. on January 31, 2018, Complainant discovered she was not invited to a career symposium for upward mobility; 2. on April 25, 2018, Complainant became aware that she was passed over for a Clerk Custodial position; 3. on July 13, 2018, Complainant received a letter instructing her to report for a Fact- Finding Interview of July 20, 2018; and 4. management withheld checks or payments from Complainant. The Agency issued a final decision on April 1, 2019. The Agency dismissed claim 4, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8), finding that Complainant was alleging dissatisfaction with the processing of her prior EEO complaint. The Agency found no discrimination for claims 1 through 3. Complainant appealed. Our previous decision determined that the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions in claims 1 through 3. The decision determined that the Agency did not deny Complainant the opportunity to attend the career symposium. Rather, the symposium was a voluntary function that was advertised at the office, but Complainant failed to request or notify management of her interest in attending. The prior decision also noted that Complainant never applied for the Clerk Custodial position, as Complainant was not at work during this time and was on leave without pay. Additionally, the prior decision explained that the Fact-Finding Interview did not occur because it was canceled and not rescheduled. The prior decision concluded that these articulated reasons failed to demonstrate pretext for discrimination. Regarding the dismissal of claim 4, the prior decision determined that the dismissal was proper. The record supported that the Commission had previously determined in EEOC No. 0120151126 that Complainant was entitled to compensatory damages in another matter (Agency Case No. 4E- 852-0026-14) and remanded the case to the Agency for processing. The record further reflected that Complainant withdrew her appeal of the Agency’s subsequent award of compensatory damages. Additionally, the record reflected that Complainant received a check for the awarded amount. Therefore, the prior decision affirmed the dismissal of claim 4, pursuant 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8), finding that Complainant was expressing dissatisfaction with the EEO process with the processing of her prior complaint. Finally, the prior decision acknowledged Complainant’s indication that her claims constituted discriminatory harassment and determined that the claims at issue, even if true, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to support that she had been subjected to discriminatory harassment. See Cobb v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05970077 (Mar. 13, 1997). 2021000112 3 In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. However, we emphasize that 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. 2019003529 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. 2021000112 4 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 February 9, 2021 Date