0520170619
01-18-2018
Rolf K,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Rolf K,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520170619
Appeal No. 0120171206
Hearing No. 420-2016-00044X
Agency No. 4G350012615
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120171206 (August 15, 2017). 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).
Complainant worked as a Review Clerk at the Agency's Post Office in Gadsden, Alabama. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (African American), color (black), disability, and reprisal when (1) on June 17, 2015, Complainant was notified that his bid assignment was being abolished, subsequently on June 20, 2015, he was denied a preference eligible clerk assignment. Complainant added the bases of sex (male) and age when (2) on August 1, 2015, Complainant's supervisor charged him with unscheduled leave after it had been approved; and (3) on a date(s) unspecified, Complainant's supervisor failed to schedule training for him, while Caucasian and female employees received training.
Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination claims. In his decision, the AJ found that the Agency needed to address the staffing at the facility where Complainant worked as it was no longer a mail processing facility, and Complainant's position as a Review Clerk was no longer needed. Other positions/bids were also abolished and scheduling changes were made. The AJ noted that Complainant's real issue was that the Agency did not follow the collective bargaining agreement. The AJ noted that with respect to the leave issue, Complainant was never denied annual leave, and was not disciplined in any way. Finally as to training, Complainant completed the training in July and August 2015, he could have gone earlier, but there were problems with his computer password, he was off work several days, and he took union time during which he could not take the training. The training was scheduled first for those who were routinely assigned to the window.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and, again, references his grievances and the collective bargaining agreement. Complainant makes many of the same arguments that he made in his previous 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. 0120171206 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. 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 18, 2018
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520170619