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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 4, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002530 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Valerie M.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021003018 Appeal No. 2020002530 Hearing No. 530-2015-00253X Agency No. 4C-150-0036-14 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002530 (March 11, 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). During the relevant time, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Full Time City Carrier, Grade 1, at its Wheeling, West Virginia Station. On April 24, 2014, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency based on disability when: on March 11, 2014, her Postmaster “yelled at her” and told her 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. 2021003018 2 not to return to work; and on March 20, 2014, she received a Termination of Light Duty Assignment. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. Specifically, the AJ determined that the Postmaster’s remark was not motivated by Complainant’s disability, but rather frustration with her job performance. Further, Complainant was terminated from her light duty assignment because she was not performing satisfactorily, and she failed to abide by the terms of the light duty assignment. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020002530, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. As an initial matter, Complainant has argued that the AJ erred by not allowing her to amend her complaint to add additional claims. The record reflects that from May 2016 to September 2019, Complainant filed seven motions to amend her complaint with the Agency. The Agency repeatedly informed Complainant that, rather than seeking to amend her complaint, which had already been investigated, she should contact an EEO counselor related to the new claims and file a new complaint and have her claims investigated. Complainant challenged the Agency’s denial of the amendments before the AJ. However, we find no error by the AJ in also denying the amendments as the new claims involved different managers and a different time period from the complaint being adjudicated. As to the merits of her complaint, in her request for reconsideration of the appellate decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002530, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during her original appeal. 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. 2020002530 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021003018 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 August 4, 2021 Date